The unstable future of a world full of men

Oct 26, 2011 by Giles Hewitt

As the global population hits seven billion, experts are warning that skewed gender ratios could fuel the emergence of volatile "bachelor nations" driven by an aggressive competition for brides.

The precise consequences of what French population expert Christophe Guilmoto calls the "alarming demographic masculinisation" of countries such as India and China as the result of sex-selective abortion remain unclear.

But many demographers believe the resulting shortage of over the next 50 years will have as deep and pervasive an impact as .

The statistics behind the warnings are grimly compelling.

As the global population hits seven billion, experts are warning that skewed gender ratios could fuel the emergence of volatile "bachelor nations" driven by an aggressive competition for brides.

Nature provides an unbending biological standard for the sex ratio at birth of 104-106 males to every 100 females. Any significant divergence from that narrow range can only be explained by abnormal factors.

In India and Vietnam the figure is around 112 boys for every 100 girls. In China it is almost 120 to 100 -- and in some places higher than 130.

And the trend is spreading: to regions like the South Caucasus, where Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia all post birth ratios of more than 115 to 100, and further west to Serbia and Bosnia.

Many demographers believe a predicted shortage of adult women over the next 50 years will have as deep and pervasive an impact as climate change.

Global awareness of the problem was raised back in 1990 with an article by the Nobel prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen that carried the now famous title: "More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing."

say that figure is now more than 160 million -- women selected out of existence by the convergence of traditional preferences for sons, declining fertility and, most crucially, the prevalence of cheap prenatal sex-determination technology.

As many as half a million female are estimated to be aborted each year in India, according to a study by The Lancet.

"Earlier villagers had to go to the city to get a (ultrasound)," said Poonam Muttreja, executive director of the non-profit Population Foundation of India. "Today sonographers are going into the villages to cater to people who want sons."

Even if the at birth returned to normal in India and China within 10 years, Guilmoto says men in both countries would still face a "marriage squeeze" for decades to come.

Graphic showing the birth of surplus men in India since 1950, plus the skewed sex ratio of selected countries including India, China and Vietnam.

"Not only would these men have to marry significantly older, but this growing marriage imbalance would also lead to a rapid rise in male bachelorhood... an important change in countries where almost everyone used to get married," he said.

How that change might manifest itself is hotly debated, although nearly everyone agrees there is no foreseeable upside.

Some forecast an increase in polyandry and sex tourism, while others predict cataclysmic scenarios with the rise of male-surplus societies where sexual predation, violence and conflict are the norm.

A particularly alarmist note was sounded several years ago by political scientists Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer, who wrote that Asian countries with too many men posed a security threat to the West.

"High-sex-ratio societies are governable only by authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing violence at home and exporting it abroad through colonisation or war," they said.

In India and Vietnam the birthrate rate is around 112 boys for every 100 girls. In China it is almost 120 to 100 -- and in some places higher than 130.

Mara Hvistendahl, a correspondent for Science magazine and author of the recently published "Unnatural Selection", says fears of full-scale wars are unfounded, and points out that India remains a thriving democracy, despite its shockingly high gender imbalance.

However she does agree with the underlying premise.

"Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," Hvistendahl stressed.

"Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent," she said, adding that leaders in both China and India have spoken of the threat gender imbalance poses to social stability.

UN agencies have issued similar warnings about the correlation between a scarcity of women and increases in sex trafficking and marriage migration, albeit with certain caveats.

"The data is really limited," said Nobuko Horibe, Asia-Pacific director of the UN Population Fund. "It is very likely that this marriage squeeze would lead to these phenomena... but it's very anecdotal at this stage."

India's population is estimated at 1.2 billion, coming in second place after China. Some forecasts say India will have the highest population on earth by the year 2030.

But while more and more red flags are being raised over the long-term implication of skewed sex ratios, few solutions are being offered.

Sex-selective abortion is illegal in both China and India, but officials say the law is incredibly difficult to enforce.

There is "no silver bullet", admits Guilmoto, who believes the first priority is to make sure the problem is properly publicised -- and not just in the developing world.

"In some countries in eastern Europe, people are absolutely not aware of what is going on," he warned.

Explore further: Research geared to keep women from fleeing IT profession

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ultrasounds worsen Asia women shortage: UN

Oct 06, 2011

Increased access to technology that allows parents to know the sex of their foetus has left Asia short of 117 million women, mostly in China and India, the UN said Thursday.

Male preference could have negative impact

Oct 30, 2007

Prenatal sex selection of boys in some Asian countries could lead to negative social consequences such as a surge in sexual violence, a U.N. agency reported.

Where have all the young girls gone?

Feb 10, 2011

The widespread availability of ultrasound scans in India is giving rise to abortions of female foetuses on an unprecedented scale, according to new research by Professor Sonia Bhalotra from the University’s ...

Recommended for you

Orphaned children can do just as well in institutions

8 hours ago

The removal of institutions or group homes will not lead to better child well-being and could even worsen outcomes for some orphaned and separated children, according to new findings from a three-year study across five low- ...

User comments : 201

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 26, 2011
As the global population hits seven billion, experts are warning that skewed gender ratios could fuel the emergence of volatile "bachelor nations" driven by an aggressive competition for brides.


Rampant idiocy as is uncontrolled population growth. Dire consequences are unavoidable.
Nexus789
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2011
A society in extremis will no doubt exhibit some odd characteristics before the final collapse from any number of factors or a combination of those factors.
omatranter
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2011
This should bring sex selection services to the masses.

http://news.cnet....247.html
"Vscan is cleared as a prescription device for ultrasound imaging, measurement, and analysis in the clinical applications of abdominal, cardiac (adult and pediatric), urological, fetal/OB, pediatric, and thoracic/pleural motion and fluid detection."

"Vscan is currently priced at $7,900 per unit"
Cynical1
2.5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
Guess this screws up that old Beach Boys lyric about "Two girls for every boy"
But, it does bring up an interesting dilemma - how to rid rid the world of all those males. Polyandry and homosexuality will probably be more prevalent, as well as more conflict. And maybe men will develop the ability to - I forget the exact term - procreate on their own...
Nahhh... who would stay home to watch the kids?
zweistein_2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2011
Why is so important to have sex in the first place?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (27) Oct 26, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.
axemaster
4.8 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.

But also the whole dowry system, which makes having boys economically profitable. You can certainly argue that population control is bad, but you also have to acknowledge the fact that those governments probably resisted putting those controls into effect in the first place. Why? Because there would inevitably be severe public backlash, something these governments want to avoid since it can lead to their demise.

In other words, the governments probably put the population controls into place as a last resort. Who knows what would have happened if they hadn't done so.
Pirouette
2 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
The problem mainly lies in the preference of some cultures for one gender over another. It's just another form of sexual discrimination, which is what Feminists are likely to consider it. Nature, left to its own device, usually evens everything out on the playing field. But, mankind has to mess around and, the end result is a bit of chaos. What can you do with people? They're everywhere and they all know what they want.
Yes, there have been some governments who forced their people to toe the line, but govs come and govs go and Nature remains and does her stuff.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 26, 2011
governments probably resisted putting those controls into effect in the first place.

I don't think so.
China has been quite aggressive and the USA and others have supported killing babies up until delivery.
emsquared
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.

Yeah, no. You meant culture, of course.

It is those cultures that have put literal greater value on males that has compelled those people to favor male progeny. If there was no "cultural law" of patrilineal inheritance, it wouldn't effect sex-ratios if the gov't enforced birth controls or not.

And where does patrilineality come from? While it's deepest roots lie in all of our common hunter-gatherer ancestry and the andro-centric nature of those societies due to the harsh realities of survival, it is perpetuated by religion.

So, yet again, it is not a problem manifest of government or economic system per se, but of a populations education and religion.

Please carry your logic through to it's conclusion if you are going to feign at using it, ryg.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2011
"An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken Chinas one-child-per-family law.

Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiyings house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital.

There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby.
The policy leads to an estimated 13 million abortions every year, with many of those ordered by local authorities. Infanticide is also widespread in many rural areas.

Those who violate the one child law can be fined up to £25,000.

Read more: http://www.dailym...bioDJmb0
Nerdyguy
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2011
"But many demographers believe the resulting shortage of adult women over the next 50 years will have as deep and pervasive an impact as climate change." - From the article

Wait, doesn't this mean there will be no impact at all?
Moebius
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
Sounds like another case of our epidemic stupidity. Sucks to get what we want AND have to accept the consequences that go with it. I hate that.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2011
They didn't mention this at all in the article, but it IS possible that in a heavily male population, a few marriageable-age women MIGHT go missing. I'm thinking that some of those men could be desperate enough to actually KIDNAP women and force them into a conjugal relationship whilst being imprisoned.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
Just have gangbangs and let the best men win. No problem.
KhanneaSuntzu
1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2011
In Japan this has been a problem for some time too. Guess what, Japanese women have been saying 'fuck this shit' and are emigrating in droves. Leaving an ever smaller population of females, exacerbating the problem. This is a no-win situation.

A GREAT solution will be a medical treatment that turns all the excess men gay.
KhanneaSuntzu
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
"But many demographers believe the resulting shortage of adult women over the next 50 years will have as deep and pervasive an impact as climate change." - From the article

Wait, doesn't this mean there will be no impact at all?


Wow that was like stupid.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
Moebius -
Have our cake and it eating US, too.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
I think that India and China need to forced to watch Paint Your Wagon or just talk to the Sherpas. I sure they will just love the Sherpa solution. Two brothers marry one woman.

Or they could go the Thunderdome route. Two men enter one man gets a wife and the other is pig food. Entertainment for all and energy from pig shit as a bonus.

Ethelred
MarkyMark
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2011
"An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken Chinas one-child-per-family law.

Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiyings house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital.

There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby.
The policy leads to an estimated 13 million abortions every year, with many of those ordered by local authorities. Infanticide is also widespread in many rural areas.

Those who violate the one child law can be fined up to 25,000.

Read more: http://www.dailym...bioDJmb0

Seems you have missed the whole point of that very extreme law rygtard. China has a very big overpopulation problem devloping even with this law. Also your first post here was a laughable at best attempt to say its all the fault of Socalism ( wooooo ), you must smoke whatever Omatard does to keep on with that.
MarkyMark
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.

Once again you show that Omatard is not the only bats@#t crazy one around here. Try reading the article there is no part of itthat blames Socalism ( woooooo ) as the root cause of this problem.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
"But many demographers believe the resulting shortage of adult women over the next 50 years will have as deep and pervasive an impact as climate change." - From the article

Wait, doesn't this mean there will be no impact at all?


Wow that was like stupid.


It was a joke you knucklehead. And, you know what they say, if you can't take a joke...
M_N
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2011
These countries are reaping the consequences for the mass slaughter of unborn girls. I have no sympathy for them at all...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'

These countries are reaping the consequences for the mass slaughter of unborn girls. I have no sympathy
the consequences being 1) fewer baby makers and 2) emigration for men who really want to get married and 3) increased competition for remaining females, which is a way of selecting for quality over quantity. Win-win-win.

These countries, as the religionists I quoted above should realize, are in the throes of ancient, outdated, and virulent cultures which are founded on RELIGION. These religions demand that women devote their lives primarily to making and raising children. This causes chronic overpopulation leading to suffering and want, leading to unrest, leading to war and revolution.

Religionists don't care about this. They expect god to provide for as many children as they can bear because he is on THEIR side. So their kids grow up in deprivation and die in combat or martyrdom.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2011
Until these sick and senile cultures can be destroyed they will cause either continued conflict and suffering or the draconian measures to prevent it that Religionists so enjoy lamenting. These abortions are on YOUR heads, godders. Your religions are the reason why they occur.

Give up your beliefs in gods who perform miracles just for you, and learn to live within your means; and war, starvation, and abortion will stop.

ONE BILLION ABORTIONS in the last hundred years. Gods will.
http://www.johnst...dex.html
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2011
"Give up your beliefs in gods who perform miracles just for you, and learn to live within your means; and war, starvation, and abortion will stop."

Sort of preaching to the choir here. Too bad this message will be unlikely to resonate where it's actually needed.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
It was a joke you knucklehead. And, you know what they say, if you can't take a joke...
You are a bit new around here. So.. there is a problem with jokes on forums. There are a LARGE number of total wackjobs on most forums. People that would have written what you said and meant it quite literally and not noticed that it could be take as parody.

Even with a long track on site some of my silly jokes are sometimes mistaken as serious. The problem is not that the person that replied to you was a knucklehead. The problem was that he couldn't be sure if YOU were a knucklehead. Neither could I. I gave you one of the five ones you got. Sorry but that can happen when you don't use smilies.

I HATE smilies. NEVER use them. They are bad for parody. You just have to accept that occasionally:

What we have heau ... is a failure ... to communicate.

Ethelred
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
@Ethelred, you must be under the impression that I give a rat's ass about your thoughts on my attempt at humor.

This is a news site, not your private forum. You are not the chairman, and not on the board of directors. Hell, idk, maybe you are. In any case, it is beyond pathetic that you felt it necessary to "correct" my behavior.

I am a 43 year old man with a job, a wife, and 3 kids. I proudly, sometimes arrogantly, and often with humor, will say whatever I damn well please.

So, I'll say again, any of you uber-nerds that can't take a joke, you need to rethink your pathetic lives. Toodles.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.

Do you have any evidence for that? The article cites a cultural preference for boys. The reason I hear of regularly is that this preference is strongest where only sons take care of their parents, and where there is no old age pension. It seems the preference for sons is an economic decision in a free market (attempts at government regulation to prevent the skewed sex ratio have largely failed) that allows for selection of the economically advantageous choice.

Has it ever occurred to you that government interference might not be responsible for all the ills of the world?
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Who skewed the sex ratios? Govts that tried to force population controls upon their 'citizens'.

Do you have any evidence for that? The article cites a cultural preference for boys. The reason I hear of regularly is that this preference is strongest where only sons take care of their parents, and where there is no old age pension. It seems the preference for sons is an economic decision in a free market (attempts at government regulation to prevent the skewed sex ratio have largely failed) that allows for selection of the economically advantageous choice.

Has it ever occurred to you that government interference might not be responsible for all the ills of the world?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
Do you have any evidence for that?

See China.
It seems the preference for sons is an economic decision in a free market

What is the 'free market' for parents to have children in China?

"In China, a womans body is not her own, said Reggie Littlejohn, the president of Womens Rights Without Frontiers. It is the domain of the state.

Three Chinese women testified about being forced to have abortions. One spoke anonymously for fear of reprisal against many of her family members who still live in China."
http://www.nation...woodruff
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
@Ethelred, you must be under the impression that I give a rat's ass about your thoughts on my attempt at humor
I see you have an anger problem. I was trying to help you. It was not criticism. My mistake. You deserved the ones and I was wrong to apologize for giving you a one. So you just got another.

This is a news site, not your private forum.
I know that.

You are not the chairman, and not on the board of directors.
Correct.

Hell, idk, maybe you are.
No. I do live in the same county the servers are on, last time I checked.

In any case, it is beyond pathetic that you felt it necessary to "correct" my behavior
It is just plain stupid the way you responded to my attempt to help you.

I am a 43 year old man
I am 60. So what?

I proudly, sometimes arrogantly, and often with humor, will say whatever I damn well please
Good. Now you might want to consider an elbow transplant.

It seems likely you will misunderstand that as well.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2011
So, I'll say again, any of you uber-nerds that can't take a joke
If can't stand help with a joke you need to consider what that you should fix that temper problem anyway. That was the second part of my reply that you just went ballistic over.

you need to rethink your pathetic lives. Toodles.
My life is my own. You sense of humor is nonexistent as this rage filled post shows. I am sorry for your arteries. They must hate you.

Ethelred
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Do you have any evidence for that?

See China.

That is no evidence for the claim you made. You claimed it was government policy to skew the sex ratio. In India, abortion for sex selection is outlawed, but ineffective enforcement creates a free market for sex selection. The Chinese government is understandably worried about the social instability to be expected from a very skewed sex ratio, and has likewise outlawed sex selection. Given the corruption common in authoritarian regimes, that doesn't seem to be very effective, either.
It seems the preference for sons is an economic decision in a free market

What is the 'free market' for parents to have children in China?

You made a claim about the sex ratio, now you try to change the subject.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
You claimed it was government policy to skew the sex ratio.

No, I did not.
I did prove sex ratios were and are skewed by China's one child laws.

And it demonstrates the coercive policies that try to control population has consequences.
Communist Romania discovered this when they banned abortions and birth control to increase population.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
"In 1966, Nicolae Ceausescu, the ruler of Romania, placed a ban on birth control and decreed that women under 40 were required to have five children. The intent of these laws was to increase the population as well as build the Romanian Workers Army. The laws created a problem as within a year, women began dropping off unwanted children at state orphanages or hospitals. The mothers attitude was if the government wanted them, so the government should raise them. After the overthrow of Ceausescu in December 1989, the world became aware of the many orphanages with large rooms of youngsters with only one staff member to care for their needs. Child abandonment still continues to the present day in Romania and now mothers desert their children because they feel that they do not have the resources to raise them."
http://www.caird....hans.htm

http://news.bbc.c...9589.stm
Sigh
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
You claimed it was government policy to skew the sex ratio.

No, I did not.

I checked your original statement, and it does allow for a different interpretation, and I didn't pick the one you intended. Sorry.
I did prove sex ratios were and are skewed by China's one child laws.

To be sure I don't misinterpret you again, are you saying it is specifically government coercion that skews the sex ratio?

Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Perhaps we need to pull back to a larger timescale and consider - is this another evolutionary experiment?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
@ryggy
Perhaps ceaucauscau's actions were really an attempt to counter Moslem incursion, in the traditional way? Only instead of the church mandating reproduction, as it always had, the state found it had to do so or be overrun as is happening throughout the region.

Doesn't matter which religion - they are all guilty of this. If they didn't exist there would be no need for any country to have to forcefully modulate reproduction. I'm sure Romanian women would rather not have had to bear those children to begin with. I'm sure many Moslem women wished they did not have to bear children only to watch them starve or die on the battlefield in adolescence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
To be sure I don't misinterpret you again, are you saying it is specifically government coercion that skews the sex ratio?

That has been the result.
Of course the more subtle govt coercion is how females are treated under the law.
astro_optics
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Hmmm....why do you think that they are pushing homosexuality so hard???
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
Hmmm....why do you think that they are pushing homosexuality so hard???


Who are you referring to?
Sigh
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
To be sure I don't misinterpret you again, are you saying it is specifically government coercion that skews the sex ratio?

That has been the result.

I asked whether you believe that coercion is a necessary cause, not whether there is a correlation.
hb_
not rated yet Nov 02, 2011
@Otto

Perhaps you are joking, but anyway... Romania did not have any immigration from muslim countries since it was a communist dictator state at that time.

Also, don't blame the socialist policies of this former dictator country on religion. Not everything is about religion..
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
@Otto

Perhaps you are joking,
I absolutely am NOT joking.
but anyway... Romania did not have any immigration from muslim countries since it was a communist dictator state at that time.
And Leaders were concerned about the future. China is having it's own problems with exploding Moslem pops within it's borders. The USSR had the same problems. Russia and former member states are now struggling with this. Aggressive reproduction within their borders is all that is necessary.
Also, don't blame the socialist policies of this former dictator country on religion. Not everything is about religion..
You are a religionist yes? I suppose you feel yours is the GOOD one? ALL religion is ONE THING. As long as any one of them is acceptable then any one of them can claim the right to exist.

ALL are based on vile bigotry. ALL seek to outgrow the others. This is the CAUSE of all the most horrible conditions in the world today. ALL must go if we can expect to survive. Including yours.
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2011
@Otto

You simply don't have your facts straight. Romania had no problems with immigrants during its communist period, since there was no immigration. Ceauescu was a dictator whos policies had nothing to do with religion.

Even today, the muslim - check wiki - only make up 0.3 % of the romanian population. Practically all of these muslims are immigrant workers that have come after the fall of communism.

Ergo: The 5-children-per-woman policy had nothing to do with muslims, and nothing to do with religion.
hb_
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
@Otto

Keep your views, by all means, but try to get the facts straight. There was no immigration from muslim countries during the communist regime in Romania, and the policies of the Ceauescu regime had nothing to do with promoting religion.

Even today some 20 years after the fall of communism there is only about 0.3 % muslims in Romania. Virtually all of these muslims are immigrant workers that have arrived AFTER the fall of communism.

Ergo: The Ceauescu 5-children-per-woman policy had nothing to do with muslims, and had nothing to do with religion.
hb_
not rated yet Nov 02, 2011
Sorry about the double posting!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
Ergo: The Ceauescu 5-children-per-woman policy had nothing to do with muslims, and had nothing to do with religion.
You think that Leaders are only meant to deal with the present? That the People who put them there are not Preparing for future conditions by doing so?
Virtually all of these muslims are immigrant workers that have arrived AFTER the fall of communism.
Such was the case with pakistani immigrants in britain, turkish immigrants in germany, or north african immigrants in spain and italy. In only 1 or 2 gens their exploding numbers threaten the future of these countries.

In kashmir, the balkans, gaza and elsewhere, recent history has shown that virulent religionist minorities can quickly become majorities and cause explosive violence. This is what they are Designed to do. Teddy Roosevelt called this 'warfare of the cradle'.

Augustine noted it in the spread of jews around the mediterranean. An old Formula.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2011
Islam in Romania
http://en.wikiped..._Romania

-A long history. Im sure islam considers it part of a future caliphate. And so much more.
Ceauescu was a dictator whos policies had nothing to do with religion.
The Purpose of communism is to destroy cultures. Despite what it says, this is what it always DOES. It is martial law. The cultures it is meant to destroy are invariably religion-based.

Cawchessques policies had EVERYTHING to do with religion.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2011
@Otto

It seems that you are no longer disputing what I am claiming: Ceuauescu's 5-children-per-woman policy had nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with muslims. Good enough for me!
hb_
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2011
@Otto

I beleive that most people - including religious people - do most things for reasons other than religion.

You do not share this view; religious people use "reproduction" strategies to promote their religion a.s.o. But what about your self? Do you have children to "counter" religion by raising atheists? Do you really let religion dictate what you do? If no, why do you beleive that religion plays such an important role in the lives of others? Just curious..
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
You mistake Otto's bugaboo. It is not religion as such, though he does seem to detest all of them. Mainly he thinks that religion is a merely one more tool of the:

Secret Masters.

Or at least he acts as that is the way he thinks.

I think he played too much Illuminati.

Ethelred
zweistein_2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
I'll throw in some thoughts straight from the source:
"The Purpose of communism is to destroy cultures. Despite what it says, this is what it always DOES. It is martial law. The cultures it is meant to destroy are invariably religion-based."
Come to Romania and see how bad communism was. Communists built half of what you will see. As personal experience i had a nice childhood in communism ( not with game consoles and fancy toys but adequate for the times ).

"Cawchessques policies had EVERYTHING to do with religion."
Communists hate religion and Ceausescu did just that. He demolished churches to build other buildings.

Communist times == zero unemployment. In fact there was a lack of workforce hence population grow was encouraged.
These days population actually shrinks.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
@Otto

I beleive that most people - including religious people - do most things for reasons other than religion.

You do not share this view; religious people use "reproduction" strategies to promote their religion a.s.o. But what about your self? Do you have children to "counter" religion by raising atheists? Do you really let religion dictate what you do? If no, why do you beleive that religion plays such an important role in the lives of others? Just curious..


It seems that you are using the example of your own life. One can assume from the fact that you post here that you have a basic education and can produce rational thought.

Unfortunately, there are teeming masses of radical Muslims throughout the world who are taking direct orders from radical imams and doing nothing to think for themselves.

There are other examples, but this seems to be, from the standpoint of religion, one of the most flagrant examples.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
To be sure I don't misinterpret you again, are you saying it is specifically government coercion that skews the sex ratio?

That has been the result.

I asked whether you believe that coercion is a necessary cause, not whether there is a correlation.

Coercion is a necessary cause for what?
ALL laws are coercive, unless they are US immigration 'laws' which are actively ignored.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2011
You mistake Otto's bugaboo. It is not religion as such, though he does seem to detest all of them. Mainly he thinks that religion is a merely one more tool of the:

Secret Masters.

Or at least he acts as that is the way he thinks.

I think he played too much Illuminati.

Ethelred

Really. 'Secret Masters'? You mean these guys?
http://video.goog...2973183#

-The vid didnt include the Master:
http://www.davidicke.com/

-But really theyre all a little short-sighted dont you think? 200 years is not near enough time to build a civilization. Ask solomon-

No my bugaboo is about what religions DO. Listen to what this guy says.
http://www.youtub...=related

'By islamic propagation or by the rifle.' -is what he says.

I hate what religions DO to the world. Obviously, because it is Time to hate them. I am a Tool just like you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
The first Mitzvah

"God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.""

-The same covenant he makes with all his many mutually-exclusive groups of faithful followers. And since he was very ambiguous as to exactly who his chosen people might be, people have been arguing and fighting and killing each other in very constructive ways ever since.

And desperately trying to be the last group standing. So they can know that god had indeed created the world just for them, as they had always believed.

What a Plan! Controlled burns so that the Forest will survive and thrive. And what a beautiful place it is turning out to be.

'9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by humans.'
http://www.youtub...1pXaeCDI

How true.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2011
"US immigration 'laws' which are actively ignored." - rygg

More like "actively and willfully broken" by criminals every day! But, I'm getting off topic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
I'll throw in some thoughts straight from the source:
"The Purpose of communism is to destroy cultures. Despite what it says, this is what it always DOES. It is martial law. The cultures it is meant to destroy are invariably religion-based."
Come to Romania and see how bad communism was. Communists built half of what you will see. As personal experience i had a nice childhood in communism ( not with game consoles and fancy toys but adequate for the times ).

"Cawchessques policies had EVERYTHING to do with religion."
Communists hate religion and Ceausescu did just that. He demolished churches to build other buildings.

Communist times == zero unemployment. In fact there was a lack of workforce hence population grow was encouraged.
These days population actually shrinks.
See that? Communism is capable of MANY good things. Just imagine what things would have been like without it:
http://www.johnst...iac.html

36.6% of all pregnancies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
Somebody who agrees with me, although he is pretending to be a lot more shortsighted than I am sure he really is.

"What if there were a solution to many of the global problems that confront us, from climate change to poverty to civil wars? There is, but it is starved of resources. Its called family planning, and it has been a victim of Americas religious wars."

"Whats the impact of overpopulation? One is that youth bulges in rapidly growing countries like Afghanistan and Yemen makes them more prone to conflict and terrorism. Booming populations also contribute to global poverty..."

"Contraception already PREVENTS 112 MILLION ABORTIONS a year, by U.N. estimates. The United Nations Population Fund is a bete noire for conservatives, but its promotion of contraception means that it may have reduced abortions more than any organization in the world." -The Birth Control Solution
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF NYT

http://www.nytime...ion.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
Let me repeat that...

"Contraception already PREVENTS 112 MILLION ABORTIONS a year, by U.N. estimates."

-This does not include the pregnancies which would have come to term, another huge figure. This gives us an inkling of the preeminent problem that population growth has always been, and suggests that it has been Controlled Purposefully.

Family Planning and abortions take place in countries which were in the throes of religionist cultures prior to ww2 which would have prevented most ALL of them.

Can you IMAGINE what would have happened to the world had not these cultures been destroyed? Quite simply, war would have destroyed it.

Cultures like this still exist throughout the ME and southern asia. They are growing as fast or faster than these destroyed cultures could ever have.

THIS makes war inevitable. Unavoidable. Imminent. Immediate. But NOT Uncontrollable if it is Anticipated and Prepared for.

And if we follow events closely with this in mind we can see that it has been.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2011
"God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Isn't that the end result of scientifically observing these "elements" of our planet??

And since he was very ambiguous as to exactly who his chosen people might be, people have been arguing and fighting and killing each other in very constructive ways ever since.
And desperately trying to be the last group standing. So they can know that god had indeed created the world just for them, as they had always believed.

Why do the followers of science (such as yourself, Otto) seem to take such a hard stance about their own observations?
Because many of them fancifly believe that the "Arbitor of Proven Fact"(their own version of a God) will someday magically appear and prove them right.

Thus making those same science believers - religionists.

Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2011
Truth is - things change (a quantum fact)... Because of that, we will never know the exact beginning, end(or even if there is either of them) or exact state of ANYTHING at any given time...
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2011
Why do the followers of science (such as yourself, Otto) seem to take such a hard stance about their own observations?
Well Otto is more a conspiracy fan than a science fan.

Now what was that nonsense you posted that appears to pretend that science is a religion?

Science is tested against the real world, quite unlike Otto's conspiracy stuff. Religion, especially Abrahamic religions, the one you quoted, generally deny reality if it contradicts belief.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2011
"US immigration 'laws' which are actively ignored." - rygg

More like "actively and willfully broken" by criminals every day! But, I'm getting off topic.

Can one break laws that are not enforced?
Assemble a mob and you can trespass wherever you want.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2011
Thanks for the inferred confirmation in statement (1)

As to your question - I should have been more definitive. I should have stated - Thus making those followers appear as fervent in their belief as the followers of other dogma.

As true faithful followers of the "scientific" paradigm, we should not resort to denigrating, disdainful and dismissive commentary as to other belief systems. It is their reality and as such is real to them. That is a practice that really accomplishes nothing other than to provoke. And while doing so is a common practice of other, less observationally motivated, belief systems, it is incumbent on us TRUE believers (oops) to not engage them. We're out-numbered... (oops, again...:-)

You should find satisfaction in that you have observationally proven to yourself (and others of the same mind) what YOU believe, yourself.

Altho, I must admit, I am occasionally tempted...;-)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2011
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." ~ Winston Churchill
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
we should not resort to denigrating, disdainful and dismissive commentary as to other belief systems
Why? If they are crap we should lie about it? Or just hide in the corner?

t is their reality and as such is real to them.
No. It's their fantasy. Belief does not change the reality.

Why ever do you use 'Cynical1' as a handle?

incumbent on us TRUE believers (oops) to not engage them.
So I shouldn't tell Kevin that he is utterly wrong about the age of the Universe?

We're out-numbered... (oops, again...:-)
They can't build bombs. They have to buy them from the chemists.

You should find satisfaction in that you have observationally proven to yourself
Then why do you discuss ANYTHING with anyone?

For me the answers to those question is you aren't a cynic and most of that was silly.

And I don't have 'faith' in science. I can see that it works. You have let Ken Ham brainwash you into accepting his utter crap.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
ryggesogn2 that quote was meaningless in your hand. You don't respect ANY law.

Ethelred
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
@Nerdguy

Well, I use observation from people I meet and who I know. Even the muslim in, say, Bagdad has to deal with everyday reality. Can he earn enough money for his family? Can he keep the appartment?

The number of children per family is closely linked to the wealth of a nation. To put it shortly, when the society is rich enough to guarantee a good old age, the children are no longer seen as a pension fund. Nativity goes down.

And, OK, there are a small number nutcases that actually do deside how many children they will have based on religion or patriotism. An example of the latter are israel settlers in the Golan heights.

But, my point is that these people are outnumbered by the normal people by a factor of (at least) a hundered to one. This is true for any country. The extremists are on the tail of the gaussian distribution, as is Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Science is tested against the real world, quite unlike Otto's conspiracy stuff.
"Demography is the statistical study of human population. It can be a very general science that can be applied to any kind of dynamic human population, that is, one that changes over time or space (see population dynamics). It encompasses the study of the size, structure and distribution of these populations, and spatial and/or temporal changes in them in response to birth, migration, aging and death."

-An ancient scientific discipline, perhaps one of the first when considering that in it's applied form it is akin to husbandry.

Leaders in charge of distributing the products of communal farming kept meticulous records of who got how much of what. They could see in statistical form what their suspicions had long told them; populations grew faster than the ability to feed them. And THIS was the source of all their grief.

Science. Causality. Survival. Something had to be done.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Well, I use observation from people I meet and who I know. Even the muslim in, say, Bagdad has to deal with everyday reality. Can he earn enough money for his family? Can he keep the appartment?
No, his everyday reality is that god will provide for his family if he remains devout. And that if they are suffering then it is the infidels fault, not his. Being devout in this case means taking what the infidel has in order to support his family. This too is gods will.

The 5 pillars of Islam are configured to support families growing beyond their means. Charity for instance is mandatory and is given to believers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
And, OK, there are a small number nutcases that actually do deside how many children they will have based on religion or patriotism. An example of the latter are israel settlers in the Golan heights.
Indeed, but even better examples can be found in Yemen and gaza:
http://www.indexm...spx?v=24

'Any species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' Humans evolved in the context of high tropical attrition rates. Our natural proclivity is to spawn first, worry later.

You can see in the chart that growth is greatest in countries currently in the thrall of ancient religionist cultures intent on maximizing growth. This is how they have survived. They consistently grow far beyond their means and then they fight about it.

Humans also evolved in the context of near-constant tribal warfare. It created these huge brains of ours. Our societies are founded on this framework. Only recently have we found ways of surviving without fighting.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Why do the followers of science (such as yourself, Otto) seem to take such a hard stance about their own observations?
And why do you Religionists prefer fantasy over reality? Why would you prefer wishful thinking over reality? You are always proven wrong.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2011
"And, OK, there are a small number nutcases that actually do deside how many children they will have based on religion or patriotism. An example of the latter are israel settlers in the Golan heights.

But, my point is that these people are outnumbered by the normal people by a factor of (at least) a hundered to one. This is true for any country. The extremists are on the tail of the gaussian distribution, as is Otto.

You are making the point that societal behaviors fit nicely into a bell curve, with "most of us" representing "normal people".

Nothing could be further from the truth. A simple deduction might lead you in the right direction.

The poor and downtrodden far exceed the number of those in the industrialized West, which you seem to equate with "normal people".

The poor and downtrodden (and poor, fundamentalist Muslims are in that number) represent lack of: education, access to birth control, religious extremism, etc.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
@Nerdguy

You missunderstand me. I state two different things:

(1)First, the normal people who worry about their everyday life outnumber the zealots in any country, irrespectively of their level of powerty. You can also see this in peoples interest in politics; the number of people that actually care is much smaller than the number of people that don't give a rats as. These are the people in the middle of the gaussian distribution.

Think about it. During WW2, only a very small part of the French joined "la resistance". Same for islamic terrorists; they number in hundreds (thousands, tens of thousands?) while the moderate muslims number in the billions.

The extremists make up the "tail" of the gaussian distribution. It is just not a very good - and hence uncommon - strategy of survival to be an extremist of any sort.

(2): As the wealth of a nation grows, the nativity goes down. This does not mean that the majority of the worlds people enjoy a high living standard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
(1)First, the normal people who worry about their everyday life outnumber the zealots in any country, irrespectively of their level of powerty.
That's not true. You are making an unwarranted assumption. Look at the bar chart. The majority of peoples in countries throughout Africa and the middle east are fanatical tribalists/Religionists who think that preparing for the future is making more babies.
It is just not a very good - and hence uncommon - strategy of survival to be an extremist of any sort.
Throughout all of human history the best survival strategy has always been to outgrow the enemy.
As the wealth of a nation grows, the nativity goes down.
No you have cause and effect backwards. As population growth accelerates, wealth declines. Overgrowth causes inflation, poverty, unrest, and conflict.

Your opinions were formed during the golden age of free love and the tabula rasa. They need some updating I think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Think about it. During WW2, only a very small part of the French joined "la resistance". Same for islamic terrorists; they number in hundreds (thousands, tens of thousands?) while the moderate muslims number in the billions.
And yet they are waging successful revolutions. The French resistance was not trying to outreproduce their enemies. Religionists are trying to do this throughout Africa and Asia because it is part of their religion.

The Amish are the fastest growing minority in the US. Would you call them fanatics? Tree root growth is not especially violent but it can split granite. Population pressure is inexorable, violent, brutal. It forces conflict and aggression. It causes more suffering in the world today than anything else.

Look at the bar chart. Most all suffering and conflict are consistently occurring in those countries with the highest growth rates. Societies in these countries are consistently religion-based. This is no coincidence.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2011
Otto - I don't need to wack someone over the head with a "theory"(that could possibly change tomorrow) in an attempt to prove my concept perceptions(which could ALSO change tomorrow) are right.
I accept the evolution of EVERYTHING from nothing - because I am certain there is a physical explanation for it and proof of that will eventually arrive(through observation, of course).
I have FAITH in that acceptance. If that makes me "religionist" - so be it.

Ethel - Perhaps cautious optimist might have been better (I'll blame my choice on the 2 shots of Crown Royal).
That said - my observation shows your process is to cherry-pick snippets of statements and process that as the whole statement. You seem to LIKE argument - and to belittle other conceptual perceptions. That makes you appear - confrontational. Just a theory, of course.
Moreover, I will concede that my observations may be wrong and that the vitriol I observe expressed is just your interpretation of "friendly" banter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
And in related news:

"Mississippi voting on amendment to declare fertilized egg a person
By Mallory Simon, CNN
(CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour came out in support Friday of an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception..."

-Hopefully this would provide for the same protections and rights in the womb that people are accorded outside it. This includes protection from forced ingestion of drugs including alcohol and tobacco, and other forms of prenatal abuse.

Any mother found violating the rights of her fetus will be immediately incarcerated until the child is born so that she will not be able to further victimize her child.

Pregnancies will soon be monitored remotely, electronically, and in real time to make enforcement of this extremely important law easier.

Everybody ok with this? Marjon?
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
@Otto

The below article from Wiki supports my claim that increasing wealth results in reduced reproductive rates. It also - you will like this - shows that the more religious the more children a family will have. Now, you probably believe that this is due to a "reproduction war", but I do not think so.

Rather, I believe that it is a combination of the inverse correlation between strong religious beliefs and intelligence (more religious => less intelligent => more children), and the suppression of contraceptives that follow a strong belief in a religion.

http://en.wikiped..._paradox
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
@Otto

You make a lot of claims about what people are and what they do. Belonging to a tribe does not mean that you are a "fanatic tribalist". Believing that your children are your best insurance agains powerty at old age is also not an indicator of "extremism". It's simply a sign of poverty, and in some cases, a indicator of low education.

So, could you offer any evidence of this rampant "extremism"? Or that a majority of the muslims are more concerned with religious approval than their mundane problems?

And please, do not post links to news about single terrorist attacts, claims made by radical muslims or violent religous texts. It just doesn't prove anything.

If you have it, post links to surveys that claim that the "average Joe" of Badgad is a fervent zealot.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
@Otto

Here is another example that shows that a high birth rate does NOT cause poverty. Through 40-70, the birthrates were significantly higher than during the years 1991-2008, and yet that high birthrate was accompanied by a somewhat larger economic growth compared to later period.

Of course, the economy of the US has always been influenced by the flow of immigrants, but the example shows that an increase in the birth rate does not cause an economic downturn.


(1)
http://en.wikiped...91-).png

(2)
http://en.wikiped...973).png

(3)
http://www.infopl...067.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2011
The below article from Wiki supports my claim that increasing wealth results in reduced reproductive rates
Uh huh. You will note this theory was formulated back in the 1970s along with a lot of other progressive propagandist Wünschtraume. It is missing a few pertinent facts; among them the impact of family planning and the industrial- no, biblical-scale - abortion efforts that have occurred in the last hundred years. ONE BILLION and their descendants, in addition to those prevented by contraception.

Proponents of this theory NEVER include these pop control figures. Never.

You may want to consider that Religionists consider themselves very well educated as to how to lead their lives in ways which please god. Try educating these people about birth control. Or anything else.
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-Or even ask marjon/ryggysoggy, Kevinrts or any of the 'moderate' godders who participate here. Abortion is a sin. Try educating the goobernor of Mississippi.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Here is another example that shows that a high birth rate does NOT cause poverty.
No, overpopulation causes poverty. It is a fairly complex formula but the causes are easy to understand.

This country - the city on the hill - is not so much a nation as a Process, a melting pot. After ww2 prosperity reigned, large armies were needed to occupy foreign countries, and large areas were still underpopulated. Growth was promoted. Quantity was emphasized.

Once Quotas were filled, reproduction based on Quality could be enforced. Temptation was reintroduced - drugs, free love and sexual alternatives which did not lead to reproduction were made available and legitimized. Young people were removed from their incipient support cultures and sent off to college or to war. Only those stable, responsible, and intelligent enough were able to bear and raise children in healthy long-term families. For others there was contraception and abortion.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2011
Prewar religionist cultures in the west had effectively been mitigated; nullified. This resulted in growth below sustainable levels and allowed for immigration of the brightest, most ambitious and most pragmatic people from those target regions experiencing religion-inspired strife and hardship.

This is how the melting pot works. There must not only be room to accommodate immigrants, but compelling reasons for them to emigrate. Western nations filled up with fresh new genetic material once again. A mayor la guardia or a president kennedy would now be a governor jindal or a president Obama.

Ethelred would say this System has come about all by itself, and functions all by itself, but that notion seems pretty far-fetched to me.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2011
@Nerdguy

You missunderstand me. I state two different things:

(1)First, the normal people who worry about their everyday life outnumber the zealots in any country, irrespectively of their level of powerty. You can also see this in peoples interest in politics; the number of people that actually care is much smaller than the number of people that don't give a rats as. These are the people in the middle of the gaussian distribution.


For the most part, I can agree with this. Outside of times of war, great economic turmoil, etc.

(2): As the wealth of a nation grows, the nativity goes down. This does not mean that the majority of the worlds people enjoy a high living standard.


For Western industrialized nations, yes. How about China, India, Saudi Arabia?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2011
For the most part, I can agree with this. Outside of times of war, great economic turmoil, etc.
Minorities experiencing explosive population growth can quickly become majorities. This has happened in many places in Asia. This may happen soon in Europe.
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Yes it is a religionist production but the numbers appear to be accurate. The producers say it is a call for action; religion against religion once again, which of course never turns out well. I say it is time to oppose ALL religion.

This is the kind of thing mainstream Moslems are watching on tv in the ME:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-This is reminiscent not only of Naziism but of the spread of communist cells throughout Europe after ww1. This proliferation was a primary cause of fascisms rise. What will western people do in response to Islamist propagation in their own countries?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2011
Okay, Otto. I'm convinced. You know your subject matter.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2011
hat said - my observation shows your process is to cherry-pick snippets of statements and process that as the whole statement.
The whole thing is there. If you think I changed the meaning you are free to point it out. I am NOT cherry picking I am commenting as I read and then going over the whole thing after. I developed the techique when I first started discussing online. I think it shows how I am thinking as well as what.

You seem to LIKE argument
So does nearly everyone else that comments. Oh there a those that here for a specific agenda but most of them like to argue also. You too.

and to belittle other conceptual perceptions.
I am just pointing out nonsense. If you feel that is belittling that is not my problem. The other person is fully free to defend their position, when their position is indefensible they do often get huffy. That is their problem and I am not responsible for that.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2011
That makes you appear - confrontational.
You are confronting ME, I am confronting nonsense. I rarely confront the person. I have tried to make a few suggestions about HOW to post. Most people understand that I am trying to help. For instance I typed this in Notepad with a spell check plugin. I highly recommend it. It has a charcter count for one thing and macros for another. I use a macro for quoting.

http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

Though I am using an older version.

Moreover, I will concede that my observations may be wrong
Anyone can be wrong. At least in degree. For instance I am not wrong that Kevin or Oliver as they are full of it. The only question is how full.

that the vitriol I observe expressed is just your interpretation of "friendly" banter.
Any vitriol you see in my posts is your imagination, unless poodles are involved. Poodles are evil. People don't like it when others disagree.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2011
If someone insists on posting utter rubbish I feel no need to pretend it is of equal value to anything else that is said here.

Let me put it this way in regards to the amount of sheer crap that get posted here.

Keep and open mind. But not so far open your brains fall out.

It's not like I haven't posted stuff that was torn to shreds as well. It has happened to me. Some times I really am wrong. Sometimes its just a matter of opinion.

Its up to YOU to defend your position if you think I have said something unjust. Attacking me, as you just did, won't change the facts. Point out what I said that was wrong. Maybe I will agree with you. However changing minds takes time. If you expect it to happen over night or in a single discussion you are destined for disappointment.

Sometimes it will be your mind that should do the changing. I have changed mine when the evidence or reason warranted it.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2011
"She was further shocked when she saw the baby was a boy -- not a girl as the family had been told, it said.

According to the Foshan News, nurses had told the family the child was a girl in an effort to blunt the blow of its death.

In China, baby boys are often viewed as more precious than girls, as many families can have only one child as part of the nation's population policy and desire a male heir."
http://medicalxpr...firstCmt
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
@Nerdguy

Well, for China the birth rate has gone down dramatically, but not due to the increasing wealth. Instead, the official policies of China, which impose heavy fines on the parents that choose to have a second child. So, it is hard to say how it would have been without this policy. Anyhow, population growth is not a problem in China.

Now for India, the total fertility is not that large [2]; 2.68 children per woman. We have to remember that the GDP per capita is still only about 3500 USD [3], but growing very rapidly. So, I expect that the total fertility rate will go down pretty soon.

Note that population will no doubt grow significantly due to reduced mortality rate, but this is OK. It just means that they will be well off.



(1)
http://en.wikiped...ity_rate
(2)
http://en.wikiped...of_India
(3)
http://www.indexm...amp;v=67
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
@Otto

Since you do not offer any shredd off proof that the average Joe of Bagdad - you don't even try - I acknowledge that you accept that the "average Joe" in any muslim country is simply an "average Joe". Good!

Now, let't see if you can take the next logical step and refrain from posting claims of "reproductive strategies" of muslim, and refraining making statements such as "he majority of peoples in countries throughout Africa and the middle east are fanatical tribalists/Religionists who think that preparing for the future is making more babies". That would be real progress!
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
@hb, per the growth rates. Good stuff.

One point to consider: you mentioned that China/India growth is not a problem. However, though the percentages improve, raw numbers give a better idea of the future dangers.

For example, China's growth still amounts to over 12 million per year. Or, in a single year, larger population growth than many entire countries or, in U.S. terms, larger than the population of large states like Ohio. In a single year!
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
@Otto

Nobody with half a brain is claiming that GDP is the only factor that affects the birth rate. I find it hard to beleive that proponents of the theory that an increase in wealth tends to reduce birth rates would claim such a thing.

Got any proof other than being very angry?
hb_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
@Nerdyguy

True, the numbers are large, but remember that there have been inumerous people that claimed that armagedon would start at 5 billion people. And here we are, doing just fine at 7 .... If the world would taper out before - say - 15 billion, I think we will be OK.

There are, however, two real dangers. First of all, if carbon dioxide do cause global warming, then the rapid economic growth of all third world countries could cause climate trouble (I try to avoid the word disaster).

Second, the USA will soon lag China in economic power. As the gap growths, there is a risk that this will also shift the political and military power in favor of China. And, for all the mixed good and bad that the USA has done on the world stage, having a communist dictator country in charge is far, far, worse.

I personaly hope that India will take the lead in 30 years or so.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2011
@Nerdyguy

True, the numbers are large, but remember that there have been inumerous people that claimed that armagedon would start at 5 billion people. And here we are, doing just fine at 7 .... If the world would taper out before - say - 15 billion, I think we will be OK.

There are, however, two real dangers. First of all, if carbon dioxide do cause global warming, then the rapid economic growth of all third world countries could cause climate trouble (I try to avoid the word disaster).

Second, the USA will soon lag China in economic power. As the gap growths, there is a risk that this will also shift the political and military power in favor of China. And, for all the mixed good and bad that the USA has done on the world stage, having a communist dictator country in charge is far, far, worse.

I personaly hope that India will take the lead in 30 years or so.


I agree with the above.

My concern re: pop. growth would be not so much Armageddon, but drain on resources.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
Could it be that the "poor" have nothing else they can afford to do on a Saturday night?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
Now, let't see if you can take the next logical step and refrain from posting claims of "reproductive strategies" of muslim,
I didnt. I say the reproductive strategies of religionists are built into the core of their religions. This is how they have survived and thrived.
and refraining making statements such as "he majority of peoples in countries throughout Africa and the middle east are fanatical tribalists/Religionists who think that preparing for the future is making more babies".
The evidence of this is unequivocal and readily accessible. It is their rate of population growth. I posted a link to these figures.

This growth is uniformly unsustainable.
If the world would taper out before - say - 15 billion, I think we will be OK.
You worry about climate change and political maneuvering while the ME prepares for war. Religion-mandated overgrowth is the proximate cause of war.
cont==>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
You will note in that link that Rwanda and Burundi are still near the top of the chart. Hutu and Tutsi are STILL trying to outreproduce one another. This is what led directly to the horrific violence in the 1990s and before, during which millions died. And so it WILL happen again.
http://en.wikiped...Genocide
http://en.wikiped...genocide

-It is overpopulation which causes this. The sad fact is that indications are that these were originally one people and were artificially divided, in biblical fashion, by German and Belgian occupiers for the Purpose of pitting them against one another.

Tutsis are traditionally herders, as was Abel or the israelites. Hutus are traditionally farmers, as was Cain or the canaanites. Farmers and herders are natural antagonists as they vie for the same land and resources.

This is the ORIGINAL conflict. The people fall for it every Time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
armagedon would start at 5 billion people
It took only 2 in genesis. Cain and abel came into conflict over their fathers favor, and one died.

It is not absolute numbers which indicate conflict - only the perception of shortage or the unequal distribution of resources. This can be quite subjective and thus politically useful. But too often it is the crying of children with empty bellies, that sets the tone.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2011
@Otto

There are some many gaps in your evidence. First of all, a clash between two tribes does not mean that the majority of their members are fanatic. It only takes a few crazy leaders to instigate a war. Hence, clashing tribes is no evidence of them being fanatic.

Second, you have yet to prove that a majority of the people in Afrika are members of tribes that are involved in conflicts frequently.

Third, you have to prove that the high rate of reproduction of the Hutu and Totsi is a concious strategy of the individual mothers and fathers to fight a war. You have to do this in order to show even one single example of your sweeping generalizations.

Personaly, I think the first statement is the more difficult to prove. You could not offer any substatial evidence to support that the average Joe of Bagdad is a zealot, so I doubt that you will succeed with the habitants of Afrika.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2011
@Otto

It is interesting that you bring up Cain and Abel. Have you suddenly switched sides to that of the believers? Why else would you bring up biblical figures as if their actions were a true represenation of actual events?

Just a joke... No, by armagedon I mean dire consequences on a global scale. To date, we have not seen such catastrophies. In fact, the standard of living goes up virtually everywhere, the mortality rate goes down, the percentage of people at war declines, etc. The world is becomming better and better.

Though, of all places, Africa is the one that is lagging the most at this time. Economic growth is very difficult in many african countries due to strong dissadvantageous cultural factors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
Third, you have to prove that the high rate of reproduction of the Hutu and Totsi is a concious strategy of the individual mothers and fathers to fight a war.
It is not a DECISION that individuals make. It is an inseparable part of the culture in which they live.

In order to be a part of that culture they are expected to assume the duties and responsibilities that come with it. They are raised and educated with this in mind.

Your sweeping presumptions are all western-based. I assume you can imagine being raised as part of a foreign culture, or even the culture of your grandparents, where people were held to different standards.

Beyond that, humans evolved in the context of near-constant tribal war. Those tribes which were best at this, were the ones which survived. Thats what we ARE.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Religions have only learned to channel and apply our natural tribal instincts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
It is interesting that you bring up Cain and Abel. Have you suddenly switched sides to that of the believers? Why else would you bring up biblical figures as if their actions were a true represenation of actual events?
The bible is NOT worthless. It is full of instructions on how to apply the tribal instinct to conquer and assimilate.
Just a joke... No, by armagedon I mean dire consequences on a global scale. To date, we have not seen such catastrophies.
Alexanders campaign was armageddon to the persians. The huns, the mongols, the nazis, etc.
In fact, the standard of living goes up virtually everywhere, the mortality rate goes down, the percentage of people at war declines, etc. The world is becomming better and better.
More western myopia. Rwanda and Burundi saw slaughter in biblical proportions. Millions died when pakistan was created. Red chinese killed millions of nationalists. Or this:
http://en.wikiped...ebellion

Wake up. Deutschland Erwache.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
A little taste of the soft core propaganda for international consumption that they are seeing in tehran.
http://www.youtub...embedded
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
@Otto

The Hutu and the Tutsi would still have high birth rates, even if the rival tribe was not present, since this is part of their respective cultures.

Think of it this way. The USA has had a higher birth rate than Germany for decades. Germany and the USA have been in two wars against each other in the twentieth century. By your logic, americans are trying to outreproduce the germans.. Clearly, this is not the case.

Having plenty of children is a part of the american culture, and it is not a response to germany. It works the same way with the Tutsi.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
@Otto

About the "evidence" of wide spread fanatism.. The fact that the best you could come up with is a youtube clip from Teheran speakes volumes. You just don't have the evidence.

If you would have used the TV-archive of the former state DDR, you would no doubt have found a lot of propagandistic material. Now, after the fall of the european communist states, we know from countless interviews that the inhabitants were not interested in politics.

They were simply trying to live their lives as best they could. I am sure this is also the case in Iran.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2011
@Otto

Not let us examine my other statements. As you will se in the link below [1], the world powerty has gone down. Even though the population has been growing significantly between 1990 and 2004, the proportion of poor people has gone down in ALL regions of the world.

In the same link you will see that the life expectancy has gone up all in regions of the world with the exception of sub-sahara. This is not western myopia, and it is no small thing that the average Joe of Asia has gained another decade of life.

(1)
http://en.wikiped.../Poverty
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
The Hutu and the Tutsi would still have high birth rates, even if the rival tribe was not present, since this is part of their respective cultures.
It is part of their GENETICS. You did not read the rechten article. Any species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to reproduce. As we evolved in the context of high tropical attrition rates, we can be expected to produce a LOT more.

We have reduced the elements of natural attrition one by one but our repro rate has not had enough time to compensate. A constant state of conflict over resources has been the result.
Even though the population has been growing significantly between 1990 and 2004, the proportion of poor people has gone down in ALL regions of the world.
And I explained to you WHY which you do not acknowledge. ONE BILLION abortions total and their offspring in 100 years. 15 MILLION a year. A further TWO HUNDRED MILLION prevented by contraception. And still world populations grow.
Cont==>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
This Program was able to function in all countries whose religionist cultures were destroyed in the world wars and the communist martial law which followed. This reduction in growth enabled a flood of people from unaffected third world cultures, to immigrate.
the average Joe of Asia has gained another decade of life.
And he will soon most likely lose it. The floodgates are closing. Quotas have been filled in the west. The ancient obsolete cultures in Africa and the ME are about to pop. The people there will not have enough time to be poor.

Because their numbers are not restricted by family planning, only by starvation, disease, and WAR. 'Fear the next generation' is what palestinians like to threaten Israelis with. 60% of gazans are still in grade school. They ALL fear this next generation because it will be the end of them and their viral religionist way of life throughout the region.

Armageddon will be the end of religion. Heaven will come to earth when god is driven from it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
About the "evidence" of wide spread fanatism. The fact that the best you could come up with is a youtube clip from Teheran speakes volumes. You just don't have the evidence.
And like I said you misuse the word 'fanaticism'. Would you call the amish fanatics? Or the Hasidim in NYC? Would you suggest to the iranian women in the vid to walk down the street without their headscarves?

A very small percentage of what you call fanatics can become a majority in only a few short generations by enforcing reproductive aggression. A majority of moderate Religionists can have a similar effect by reproducing beyond their ability to support themselves. This inability may not become apparent until it is too late. Moderate Religionists who do not accept family planning will eventually and inevitably be involved in war.

But before they have reached that point they will have become fanatics, intent on blaming their troubles on the next religion over and seeking to take what they have.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
Think of it this way. The USA has had a higher birth rate than Germany for decades. Germany and the USA have been in two wars against each other in the twentieth century. By your logic, americans are trying to outreproduce the germans.. Clearly, this is not the case.
And CLEARLY, things are far different in these cultures than they were before the wars. Religionist cultures in both countries were also destroyed in the wars and their aftermath.

In the 18th century American culture was still engaged in filling up the continent. And after 1870 Germany was intent on colonization, industrialization, and replacing lives lost in war.

Nazi culture demanded reproduction from güte deutsche Frauen. They gave out pretty little blue Xian crosses with hakenkreutze in the middle, to new mothers. And there was Lebensborn.
hb_
not rated yet Nov 08, 2011
@Otto

The fact that contraceptives and abortions are used more often now than before is irrelevant for what I am claiming. The point is, you see, that for whatever reason the world is becomming richer and the life expectancy is increasing overall in the world. And, since it is a world phenomena, it is not "western myopia".

Now about the Tutsi. I doubt that it - as you claim - "is in their genetics" to have many babies. Our experience of immigration is quite the contrary: when an immigrant becomes a part of the new culture, he/she takes on the pattern of reproduction of that culture. This is a very strong indication against a dominant genetic factor.

And, why should the Tutsi be different from, say, albanian immigrants? Please offer a credible source claiming that the Tutsi have a genetic predisposition to have more babies than a white american.
hb_
not rated yet Nov 08, 2011
@Otto

About fanatics. I claim that fanatics are a very small minority in any culture, and I find it almost pointless to discuss them. And no, I would not call the Amish fanatics. Why on earth should I?

A fraction of a percent of the Amish are likely to display traits of fanatisism, as in any large population. So what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
The fact that contraceptives and abortions are used more often now than before is irrelevant for what I am claiming.
Since before the 2nd world war, 1/6th of the worlds population and their descendents to 3 gens and more, were never born. Without family planning the world wouldve been headed for 12 billion decades ago. But it would have collapsed in nuclear holocaust and ecological ruin before then.

Of course its relevant to what you are claiming. The fact you dont realize this is troubling but typical. It should trouble you.
Now about the Tutsi. I doubt that it - as you claim - "is in their genetics" to have many babies.
READ the rechten paper. Try to imagine the world with 200 MILLION more people being born a YEAR.
I would not call the Amish fanatics. Why on earth should I?
Because their numbers are set to double within a generation - 16 years. And then double again. Same with hasidim. Same with gazans.
cont==>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
The amish are reproducing fanatically. This is what got their anabaptist forebears kicked out of many euro countries. This is why they were rounded up and martyred in great numbers. This is why they came here.

You dont think that fanatical martyrdom is also violence in the extreme? People who present themselves and their families for killing are every bit as violent as the people who kill them.

It always starts out small...

"Federal officials are investigating a wave of hair-cutting attacks by members of the Amish community in Ohio, CNN reports.

FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson confirmed to CNN that the FBI is investigating the attacks, which led to the arrest of five members of the Bergholz clan, a breakaway Amish gang."
http://www.freere...29/posts

-Pops grow, conflict over resources ensues, radicalized subgroups form, and people begin to lose their HAIR. So tragic. Nothing new under the sun.

You do realize that within a gen it is their heads dont you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2011
And, why should the Tutsi be different from, say, albanian immigrants? Please offer a credible source claiming that the Tutsi have a genetic predisposition to have more babies than a white american.
We are all tropical animals. We all have the same genetic predisposition. Nature vs nurture. American culture is a little farther removed from the prehistoric tribalism which made us great.

Contemporary western culture gives people effective alternatives to producing lion fodder, and then having to kill each other because all the lions are dead. And eaten.

Also in America we abort 26% of all pregnancies, and prevent far more with contraception. Tutsis and hutus do not do these things. And so they will soon be dying in great bloody piles. Again.

Mothers with babies on their backs chasing mothers with babies on their backs. With MACHETES. According to one eyewitness account.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Without family planning the world wouldve been headed for 12 billion decades ago.
Wait - That's 120 billion years. Isn't the planet only 3.5 billion years old?
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

Let us start with the Amish. There is nothing "fanatical" about having a high birth rate, in itself. You need to show why it would be "fanatical", and so far you have failed to do so for every single of your "fanatical" examples.

Your example of a single break-away group that have cut the hair of Ohians is:
(1) More humorous than serious
(2) Not general for the Amish
As proofs go for general "fanatisism", this is zero.

Second, there is nothing to suggest that the Amish emigrated because they were "out-reproducing" their fellow citicens [1]. Furthermore the difference of nativity should have been zero between the Amish and the rest at the time when they emmigrated (17- and 18-th century), since contraceptives were not in common use.

(1)
http://en.wikiped...ki/Amish
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

Abortions and contraceptives are used to limit the number of children. In fact, it is the mechanism that allows "wealth" to reduce reproduction rate. Or, the mechanism that allows women to direct themselves towards a career rather than reproduction. Not having sex is just not feasible.

In effect, you have presented evidence that supports my claims.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

About the world becomming a better place. This is an indication that we are not heading for a terrible catastrophy. Where I can show actual number of life expectancy, you can only guess that we heading for "war" and "famine". Armagedon is not here at this time.

Your prediction that the asians (and all other groups too) are soon to lose the extra decade of life expectancy that they have gained since 1980, is at least testable.

I do hope that in 2020, when the numbers do not support your theories, that you will say "guess I was wrong".
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
"Not having sex is just not feasible."

Hb - think you and my wife might argue that one...
hb_
not rated yet Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

The Rechten paper.. I have not read the whole thing, but the abstract discusses war as an origin of morality through natural selection, and this seems to have little bearing on your statements. Could you direct me towards a specific passage that you think support yours claims?
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

You seem to misunderstand my point about the USA and Germany.

What does affect the reproductive rates in Germany and the USA? Well, for starters, the percentage of women that are working, the average time in education (long education tends to postpone child bearing and hence lower the total fertility) and the use of contraceptives (this prevents unwanted pregnancies).

It may well be that the governments are trying to increase the number of university graduates in an effort to boost the economy quite a stupid policy I might add but the USA is not trying to prevent the women from entering the work force in an effort to maintain a high reproduction rate.

This means that you cannot observe (1) wars between two countries and (2) different reproductive rates and jump to (3) they are using reproductive strategies. Now, this example shows that (1) and (2) is not sufficient to conclude (3). And all you have in the case of the Tutsi and Hutu is (1) and (2).
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

You claim that all religions have reproductive strategies build in to their core, and I claim that it is a side effect of their core values.

For instance, the Amish shun all modern amenities such as electricity, zippers, social security and technology in general. Contraceptives fall under the latter category, and is therefore not allowed. Now, to my knowledge, the Amish scriptures do not ask of their members to have many children. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?

Interestingly, the Christian bible does contain such orders, in the passage where god told Abraham to reproduce. But, the bible contains a lot of strange passages, and a congregation is characterized by what they emphasize. Show me a religious branch that asks of its members to have many children, and Ill accept it as your first valid example of reproductive strategies of a religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Contraceptives fall under the latter category, and is therefore not allowed
Haha. Contraception and abortion are ancient. Midwives were burned as witches during the middle ages for teaching them.
You need to show why it would be "fanatical", and so far you have failed to do so
'Fanatical' is your word not mine. Amish produce far more kids than their farms can support. You think fanatical means suicide bombers?
(1) More humorous than serious
Not to the victims.

(2) Not general for the Amish
-An example of how factions develop in response to conflict.
As proofs go for general "fanatisism", this is zero.
It demonstrates the mechanism.

Here is an example of Religionists at work:

"Arkansas couple Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar appeared with their burgeoning clan on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday and announced they are expecting their 20th child in April."

-The natural propensity encouraged by god.
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
@Otto

So, in other words, you have no data that indicates that the Amish ask their members to have many children?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Show me a religious branch that asks of its members to have many children, and Ill accept it as your first valid example of reproductive strategies of a religion.
Quiverfull
http://en.wikiped...iverfull
"from the book A Full Quiver by Rick and Jan Hess. "... It is not irresponsible (to not use any means of birth control), because we're transferring responsibility to the one who is perfect and designed the system to begin with, understands it best and is the most qualified to manage it. It isn't that no one's responsible now; it's that God is responsible"

-A UNIVERSAL sentiment.

Religions restrict women to making and rearing babies. Their books are full of examples.
http://www.blume-...2009.pdf

Cont==>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
-LDS was designed to quickly populate resource-rich regions:

"FERTILITY. Fertility refers to actual childbearing rather than to the biological capacity to give birth. LDS theology supports attitudes and behaviors that directly influence fertility (Bean, Mineau, and Anderton; see also Children; Marriage). Consistent with a pronatalist doctrine, LDS fertility in the United States has been higher than the U.S. average, probably since the inception of the Church."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
So, in other words, you have no data that indicates that the Amish ask their members to have many children?
Data? I've given you growth rate data. I've shown you where god demands large families, per the first mitzvah and quiverfull. GOD says be fruitful and multiply, and start as early as you can. 'Children of our youth'.

The bar- and bat-mitzvahs - 'Today I am a man...' were conceived to enable this for boys at 13 and girls as young as 11. They could marry and start begatting.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
"Hasidic JEWS typically produce large families; the average Hasidic family in the United States has 7 or 8 children. This custom is followed out of a desire to fulfill the Biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply."

"Culturally, children are considered to be the wealth of a SIKH family, and so having as many children as possible[...]If a couple have not had a child within a few years of their marriage, they may be under pressure from their family to have a child[...]any discussion of contraception with unmarried Sikhs may cause problems either embarrassment or even anger from their parents later[...]contraception for the purpose of 'safe' illicit sexual relations (adultery or pre-marital sex) is not permitted. Lust (kam) is regarded as one of the five major sins in Sikhism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
"...the MUSLIM societies have higher fertility rates due to non-acceptance of contraceptives because of the religious diktats of clerics who often use the scriptures to thwart the propagation of the small family norm. As a rule, most Islamic societies have remained steeped in orthodoxy. Therefore traditionally the Mullahs and Maulvis have always exercised strong influence on the Muslim masses. Their 'fatwas' against the small family norm and endorsements thereof by the community leaders have always carried considerable weight with the faithful."
zweistein_2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2011
You want woman? There are plenty of woman almost everywhere. The only problem is that they are mainly old. I do not need that crap. And the young ones are so demanding. I do not need that neither. Woman maybe a disappearing species. So be it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2011
Natalism
"Many religions, including Islam, Judaism and some forms of Christianity, such as Roman Catholicism with its sacrament of marriage, encourage procreation.

"The Amish are among the fastest-growing populations in the world, with an average of 6.8 children per family."

"Another government which has openly advocated natalism is the Islamic Republic of Iran, following a tremendous loss of their population to the IranIraq War. The government encouraged married couples to produce as many children as possible to replace population lost to the war. As a result of this natalist attitude, Iran has experienced a youth bulge, with approximately 75% of its population under the age of 30 as of 2007."

-Iran is preparing for yet another war in exactly the same way as did nazi germany.
http://en.wikiped...Natalism
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Otto

Much better this time! You seem finaly to understand what evidence or indications is! In some of the examples, you have managed to show that the religious branch do demand many children.

Let us start with our best example. If you quote about Hasidic jews come from a credible source, then yes, you have shown that they are encouraged to have many children. If you want to call Hasidic jews fanatic childbearers, well go right ahead. Now, Hasidic jews is as far as I know a minority, so you cannot call jews in general fanatic childbearers, or even fanatic. If you check the table in the Blume-paper, you will see that the jews in Switzerland apparently have app. 2 children per woman, which is a far cry from 7-8 per family.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
"The settler population is growing twice as fast as the rest of the country every year, and the ultra-Orthodox community is responsible for approximately half its annual growth...In the last year, the settler population has grown by 5.45 percent, from 260,932 to 275,156."

Commentary on this haaretz article is interesting:

"The author's words that "most of the ultra-Orthodox settlers...do not live in the West Bank for ideological reasons" is an understatement. Actually these are Jews who are opposed to the existence of the Zionist state. However, the appearance of these statistics should serve as their wake-up call to realize that the world - both Zionist and non-Jewish - sees them as part of the West Bank settler population, the extremist wing of the Zionist movement."
http://www.jewsag...fm?id=13

-Both want the same thing, and both understand that the only way to get it is to outgrow the enemy. And their enemy also knows this. This is gods will.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011

you will see that the jews in Switzerland apparently have app. 2 children per woman, which is a far cry from 7-8 per family.
Switzerland is westernized. They abort 12% of all pregnancies and prevent far more through contraception. 
http://www.johnst...zc2.html

-Religionists, for the moment, live within their means. But their books all have contingencies for times of stress. And who knows when stress may return?
http://en.wikiped...tzerland

The Moslem pop has grown 25% in 10 years:
http://en.wikiped...tzerland

Religionists are already fretting:
http://en.wikiped...chweizer

-You cite Religionists in stable, secular societies and ignore their common potential for conflict. Any religionist anywhere who maintains his own right to indulge in fantasy, aids and abets the most radical and violent of them anywhere.
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Otto

Quiverful. You have shown that the religion, not the culture, of Quiverful prohibits contraceptives. You have not, however, shown that Quiverful demands many children. There are techniques such as 'coitus interuptus' or 'safe periods' that were popular before contraceptives.

Blume-paper. Interesting. After parousing the paper I see, however, that the paper offers many resons for the positive correlation between religiousness and high reproduction. An ,inherital, genetic predisposition and the social mechanism of proving trustworthy through relious rites. As I said, interesting, probably true, but not quite a proof that religions exist with the expressed purpose of promoting fertility. The implications of the paper is more that high fertility is a side effect.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2011
@Otto

The final conclusion of the paper is not supprted by sufficient calculations. The authors claim that the reason for the resurgence of "intelligent design" is that religios people are outreproducing the non religious.

First, they would have to show that the differences in reproductive rates are sufficient to shift the demographics in the relatively short time span that contraceptives have been around. They do not do this. This is not saying that they are not right; it just means that their statement is so far not supported by evidence.
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Otto

Amish. No, you still have not shown that having many children is one of their pillars of faith. As it stands, it seems to be a side effect of their general renouncement of modern society (and thus also contraceptives).

Your Sikh example actually lends more evidence to the notion that powerty causes people to want many children. Having many children is considered the wealth of a Sikh family, according to your quote. Now, first of all this seems to be a cultural not religious notion, and second, is it not plausible that equating many children to wealth is caused by uncertain economics of old age?
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
@Otto

As for the muslim societies.. Saudi Arabia is squarly a muslim country, and the fertility rate is high (2.35 children per woman), but not excessive [1]. Remember that you need at least 2 children per woman just to maintain the population size.

So, even though you can argue that the governing class of Iran is actively trying to promote a high fertility,and you thus have an example of where representatives of a religion is promoting child bearing, you have yet to show that is a universal trait for muslums.

(1)
http://en.wikiped...i_Arabia
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2011
The religious "Creative Design" paradigm allows for only the 6000 to 10000 yr window for the implementation of it's beginning.
Is there an undercurrent movement growing that allows for a MUCH larger window (like say the from the Big Bang til now and includes those events in it's own paradigm)? I think there may be. And it includes many scientists, religious scholars and , yes, even, laymen.
Regardless, ya gotta admit, it sure LOOKS (meaning - observations we have made and conclusions that can be logically deduced from them) like someone COULD (not saying "they" did, mind you) have designed this perfectly imperfect thing we call the Universe.
But - it was an experiment gone awry - he/she/it/they were trying to design a PERFECT system, forgetting that NOT doing the experiment would provide the correct result - ZERO...:-)
Altho, my money is on the bet that WE (the huge variety of collective bundles of energy that make up the "elements" of our Universe) are the ones to blame...:-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
Amish. No, you still have not shown that having many children is one of their pillars of faith.
"28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." gen1

-What exactly do you think this means? It is not a suggestion. It is an ORDER.

Im not sure I understand. Are you saying that even though religious books state over and over that god requires these things, you still think it takes something additional to make it so?

Some fatwa, some encyclical, some pamphlet before believers will do (1) what comes naturally and (2) what their god demands?

Ive given you the biological and evolutionary framework. Ive shown you what the books say. I have referenced the pop growth figures. I have linked articles by others who say the same things I do.

Sorry I must attribute your continued recalcitrance to loneliness or neurosis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
Your Sikh example actually lends more evidence to the notion that powerty causes people to want many children.Having many children is considered the wealth of a Sikh family, according to your quote.
You really stupid or are you playing a little game?
you have yet to show that is a universal trait for muslums.
Who said anything about universal trait?

"...the MUSLIM societies have higher fertility rates due to non-acceptance of contraceptives because of the religious diktats of clerics who often use the scriptures to thwart the propagation of the small family norm. As a rule, most Islamic societies have remained steeped in orthodoxy. Therefore traditionally the Mullahs and Maulvis have always exercised strong influence on the Muslim masses. Their 'fatwas' against the small family norm and endorsements thereof by the community leaders have always carried considerable weight with the faithful."

-Its in the quran. Just in case.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
Amish. No, you still have not shown that having many children is one of their pillars of faith.

http://amishameri...sh-have/
http://www.scilog...-studies

hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
@Otto

The two last sources have convinced me: it is in the amish religion to ask of their members to have many children. Now, why didn't you post those two links about 15 comments ago?
hb_
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
@Otto

Quoting from the bible doesn't really prove that a christian branch is pushing for many children. After all, there are plenty of christian branches that place no emphasis what so ever on having many children.

Anyhow, the point is moot, since your last two links did show that the amish do ask of their members to produce a many offspring.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Now, why didn't you post those two links about 15 comments ago?
This is what I posted 15 comments ago:
I would not call the Amish fanatics. Why on earth should I?

Because their numbers are set to double within a generation - 16 years. And then double again. Same with hasidim. Same with gazans.
-which should have convinced you.
Quoting from the bible doesn't really prove that a christian branch is pushing for many children. After all, there are plenty of christian branches that place no emphasis what so ever on having many children.
The bible unequivocally places emphasis on having many children. The more fundamentalist the sect, branch, or coven, the more strictly they will cleave unto the will of god and begat until they drop. Which is really what they were doing 50k years ago and before. Religions only seek to maintain this production at maximum capacity in order to overwhelm the enemy and replace battle losses.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
The only religions left are the warrior religions as the formula they are based upon is the best for survival...this being to grow faster while maintaining internal cohesion coupled with external animosity. Per the rechten article, which you really ought to read because it explains the human state better than anything I have yet read. Except for my own posts that is. No really.

It is no coincidence that the OT is about conquest from without, while the NT is about revolution from within. It is no coincidence that catholicisms emergence came about during constantines military campaign, or that islam was established in the same way.

Dweebs read these books and think that if they only follow directions they and their relatives will live forever, not realizing that the Purpose of these books is only to get them to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.

The People who wrote them cared nothing about what happened to people after they died. They cared everything about what people did in this life however.
Cynical1
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
It is no coincidence that the OT is about conquest from without, while the NT is about revolution from within. It is no coincidence that catholicisms emergence came about during constantines military campaign, or that islam was established in the same way.

Dweebs read these books and think that if they only follow directions they and their relatives will live forever, not realizing that the Purpose of these books is only to get them to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.

The People who wrote them cared nothing about what happened to people after they died. They cared everything about what people did in this life however.[

I'm missing out of what the OT and NT are.
And I agree with the "only to follow directions" part.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
I'm missing out of what the OT and NT are.
And I agree with the "only to follow directions" part.

Old and new testaments. Specifically joshuas genocidal rampage through the promised land; and jesus of course who was the greatest example of a martyr ever devised.

Martyrs are essential in revolutions. Jesus and Paul showed just how to foment insurrection.
hb_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

The reason that I do not call the amish "fanatic" is related to the word. The word is usually used to describe someone that sacrifices everything for a cause (religion, nation, political belief). Merriam-webster defines the word as follows: "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion"

The amish have many kids, but that is only part of their culture. A consequence of their culture - and religion - is that they have many children. But, I don't see that having many children makes them forsake anything else of their culture.

An amish woman doesn't make careers as neurosurgeons anyhow, so what career do they give up? They do not collect money as we do, either. Same goes for men. So what do they really give up by having many children?
hb_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

The amish let the youngster have a period of trying the way of the outside world, called "rumspringen", and after this they can decide if they want to remain amish or not. About 20% choose the modern society.

Of course this is a very clever strategy: The ones who leaves would have destablized their society. But, on the other hand, it is also tolerant. They don't hold - from your sources again - any grudges against those that leave the community. They even allow them to return.

This is not the hallmark of someone "fanatic". So you see, I cannot agree with you that the amish are fanatic. Sure, they have many children, but so what?
hb_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

Now, you seem really concerned by the fact that the amish reproduce quickly. I am not sure you have to. At this time they number app. 200 000, and it will take them (from your sources) another 45-60 years to reach 1.6 million, at which time they make up ~0.5 % of the US-population.

At some point, there will not be much more farmland for them to buy. And, can they compete financially with modern agriculture techniques? Who, in general, can compete pay more mony for a piece of land: the one who uses horses, or the one that uses tractors and modern fertilizers?

And, even assuming that they could continue to buy more farmland, at some point even that resource would be depleted. At this time they would have to branch into other areas, and hence come more into contact with the modern world.

The amish that would have to work as a car mechanic, do you not think that he will be affected by this?
hb_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

In the end, if and when the amish become so numerous that they are percieved as a threat, there are many simple ways of stopping their expansion. One could, for instance, put a tax on farmland that makes it impossible to pay unless you use modern farming methods.

As your own links will tell you, assimilating the amish has been done before in Europe..
hb_
not rated yet Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

About the muslims. Iran is somehat complex, since the rulers are all priests. So, if the state demands many children, then it is issued by a mulah, and can therefore be attributed to religion. But, in other muslim countries (see my example above with Saudia-Arabia) the fertility is not that overwhelming.

So, even if Iran maintains a very high birth rate, the other muslim countries seem to be going in the right direction.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

Do we need to fear that religious people will take over the world? Well, your own sources freely admit that it is not certain in what direction the causality pointing. Does a quality x cause people to become more religious and have more children, or is an increased religiousness causing more child births? If the former is true, we should not expect an increase in religious predisposition.

You should also consider the fact that there are plenty of people that are not religious. Since religiousness has had a reproductive advantage since hundreds of thousands of years (according to your sources), one might ask oneself why not all people are deeply religious. Answer: there should be some advantage to being non-religious from an evolutionary point of view.

And how will this work in the modern society? If more people fill the niche of being religious, this leaves more and more vacancies in the niche of being non-religious.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
The Amish aren't just in Lancaster county.
http://digitaluni.../eellis/

-The map doesn't show their colonies in Alaska and elsewhere. Many do not farm but work in construction, tourism, cottage industry, etc buggy repair.
They don't hold - from your sources again - any grudges against those that leave the community. They even allow them to return.
If you watch the vid you see there is a lot of animosity.
Do we need to fear that religious people will take over the world?
We need to fear that religions will destroy the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
You are wanting to equate fanaticism with some form of violence but fail to see the violence inherent in aggressive religionist population growth. Anabaptists have brought violence upon themselves throughout their history because of their virulence, despite what the history books might attribute it to.

Religious martyrs are as responsible for their persecution as those who inflict it. Martyrs for worthless causes are NOT innocent. There are things worth dying for in the world but superstition and the ability to live beyond your means are not 2 of them.

Lancaster county is within commuting distance of Philadelphia and has experienced rapid growth. As property values go up the Amish are being pressured economically and politically to sell their land. Buggy wear to roads believe it or not is a big issue and very costly.

And your pop figures only include old order Amish, not new, as well as other anabaptist sects including Mennonites.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

Well, according to wiki [1], there were 250 000 amish as of 2010. But, even if this is off by 50%, the amish will only make up ~0.75 % of the US population within the next 45 - 60 years. My point is: you don't really have to worry for the next 45 years!

http://en.wikiped...ki/Amish
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

No, I do not equate "fanaticism" with violence. I equate it with someone willing to sacrifice everything for a cause. The amish do not sacrifice everything for having many children; it is merely one of their traits.

I also do not see religion in itself as a source of violence. For instance, the USA has an unusually high percentage of religious people when it comes to western nations [1]. In fact, 83% of americans belong to a religious denomination.

If you were right in your assumption that religion breeds violence no matter the character of that religion, you would expect that the christians of the united states (~200 million) together with the christians of europe (~400 millions) would provide a large portion of the religious terrorists. They don't, so your logic is flawed.

http://en.wikiped...d_States
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2011
@Otto

Let us go back to the christians of the united states. How is their religiousness tied to violence? Do the christians commit more crimes per capita compared to the non-religious of the united states? Or are they trying to colonize oherth countries..?

I really fail to see the specific harm that they do. Of course, the united states is more civilized than, say, Iran and in the latter country the priests do order wars. So, the form of state and the culture in general has a greater impact on the ambitions of colonization of a country than the religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
you would expect that the christians of the united states (~200 million) together with the christians of europe...would provide a large portion of the religious terrorists. They don't, so your logic is flawed.
I suppose it might depend on your perspective:

"Iran's President Ahmadinejad has responded to the allegations for the first time in America to an alleged conspiracy. Not Iran but the United States are terrorists, Ahmadinejad said in a speech to students."
I also do not see religion in itself as a source of violence.
And I showed you how religion-mandated reproduction makes violence inevitable. Overpopulation is the source of all conflict. Today religions mandate overpopulation and prevent the spread of education, family planning, emancipation of women, and cultural alternatives to large families.

They enforce growth by several methods. This was useful in the past but is now nothing but trouble. No matter how pacifist they may claim to be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Let us go back to the christians of the united states. How is their religiousness tied to violence?
And I explained this ALSO. They ALL harbor the propensity for extremism, bigotry, and violence of the worst sort. It is spelled out in their books, just waiting for the time when pops swell, resources become scarce, and conflict ensues.

You think warren jeffs, breivik, mcveigh, jim jones, amish haircutters et al are anomalies. But radicals emerge when stress builds. The bible and the koran explain exactly how to do this and exactly why it needs to be done.

ANY religion which maintains its right to believe in superstition also reinforces the right of all others to do so, in their own way. Thus religions all act as one entity; one THING. There is no way of accepting the most pleasant and benign without having to allow them ALL.

And any one of them can turn at any time when things get tough. All it takes is a few Leaders to open the book to the right chapter and demand action.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
Bill says it best-
http://www.youtub...pp_video

Watch the whole thing.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

No, Otto, you have not shown how religiousness automatically leads to war. You have stated it many time, but not given any proof.

In some cases, having more children is tied to a religion directly, and in some cases it is more of a secondary effect of a different way of living.

In modern societies, it is not even clear in which way the causality is directed, so one can merely conclude that religiosness and more children covariate.

hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

As discussed above, the fertility of Europe and the United States has sunk steadily over time, while remaining nominally christian regions. This shows that the effect of economic wealth trumphs whatever effect religiousness is having on a population.

Overpopulation is not automatically caused by high fertility; is it a question of having sufficient neutritients to provide for the population. Europe, for instance, has gained a factor of 8 [1], while at the same time being transformed from a regions of near constant war to near constant peace.

(1)
http://en.wikiped...mography
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

Even though the religious people are more fertile in the USA and Europe, most groups hava a moderate fertility that is below 2.0 (from your sources, by the way), i.e. less than what is required to maintain a steady state population.

It is also not clear what will happen to the religious groups that do show a significantly higher fertility when they reach larger population numbers. As I said, the Amish has been absorbed into the rest of the population before, and it can happen again.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

You also claim that all religions are equally "bad", since all religious texts contain crazy passages. Now, the christian branches differ not by having different bibles, but by emphasizing different aspects.

There are branches who still insist on interpreting the creation litterally, and there are branches that interpret the bible as a way of describing evolution.

And, even though the "president" - he was never elected in a free election - denounces the USA as being terrorists, I think both you and I can agree that when you count the number of terrorists that claim to act in the interest is islam and the correspodning number for christianity, well, one number is simply larger.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

The reason for this disparity is to be found in the economic and social structures of muslim countries. As far as I know, there are no democratic and wealthy muslim countries. And if you do find one, I bet it is a pretty peaceful place.

Despite this, the fertility rate is comming down over all, due to a good economic development (with the exception of Africa)
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

By the way, I do not watch video clips as evidence. You have to come up with written sources if you want to convince me.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2011
@Otto

Finally, you cannot extrapolate an exponetional growth of the amish into a future several hundereds of years distant.

Contraceptives and social security may change the composition of the population so that it becomes necessary to implement new tax policies and social structures.

It used to be that children whos father didn't stay had a smaller chance of survival, ergo, there was an evolutionary selection of caring fathers. Of course, there was also an evolutionary advantage of making as many children as possible. But, these two forces were in equilibrium, and now one is completely gone.

So, if in some distant future a large portion of men only "swing by", then I am sure that tax policies will be changed so that the dutilful fathers will not have to pay for the others recklessness.

In the end, the rules are not static, so you cannot take a current trend and extrapolate it far into the future, even for the fertility of the religious people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
No, Otto, you have not shown how religiousness automatically leads to war. You have stated it many time, but not given any proof.
??
As discussed above, the fertility of Europe and the United States has sunk steadily over time, while remaining nominally christian regions.
No it dropped precipitously after the wars and resulting drastic cultural changes which enabled family planning and ABORTION. count all the changes which directly affect pop growth: raising age of consent and legal marriage; legalization of alternative non-procreative sex; extended grade school and emphasis on college; work environment which requires frequent travel and relocation; ease of divorce and potential reward for women; etc etc. How many can you think of?

All enabled by the destruction of religions influence on people. As religions wane, growth slows. Direct proportion. Unequivocal correlation.
Cont>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
Reduction of growth is now the wests first priority. Quality instead of quantity is the new perogative. Temptation has been reintroduced to cull the weak. Quality is the female reproductive strategy as she invests a great deal more time and effort in a pregnancy. Males on the other hand seek quantity.

And so we have discovered the New World Order that bush was actually referring to. Male-driven societies are being replaced by female priorities, female empowerment, female leadership in govt, business, economics. Religions are primarily male institutions structured to promote growth.

The catholic church was created with the seeds of it's own destruction built in... Celibate lifestyle which attracts gays, removing their disruptive influence from the population while at the same time giving them the private seclusion of monasteries, nunneries, rectories.

And we are witness to the wounding of a similar all-male institution in similar fashion: college football.
Cont>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2011
How much more obvious can the true nature of the church be? The long-haired, robe-wearing, soft-spoken love god who travels exclusively with 12 other guys and his mom. Oh and a token woman who is a hooker.

And his mom, the only woman able to give birth without being sullied by the touch of a man. Until recently of course. Giving homosexuals a home and a supportive environment created a fiercely loyal and secretive cadre to guard the churches sequestered information. And I am sure this was not a new idea but something inherited from still earlier disciplines.

So now we watch it slowly crumble, and we watch an enfeebled paterno who was kept around long past his time so that this particular drama could have the proper Effect at the proper Time.

"No matter what the public sentiment, it can be quickly and thoroughly changed by Events of sufficient magnitude." Such is the necessity of Managing the flock. There is a Time to sow and a Time to reap. Ok I'm done.
Cynical1
not rated yet Nov 15, 2011
Non- religious, here... I don't know about producing any more babies, but I sure wouldn't mind gettin laid occasionally...
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

Correlation is not suffient to prove in which direction the action is taking place. Are we getting better and better standard of living because of contraceptives etc, or are the better conditions driving a demand for better rules?

When it comes to education, I think the consensus is now that better living standard - at least beyong 20% enrolment per generation - is driving the demand for university degrees.

You can see this by the fact that increasing the percentage of university graduates to above 20% (or perhaps even 10%) does not give a country a competitive edge over a country with - say - 10 % unversity graduates.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

All the social changes that you mentioned - womens rights, pensions, contraceptives - are either forces that directly improve the quality of living or instruments of improvement.

Their primary function is not, however, to reduce the religious influence.

Really, if you want to state that the more important implication of womens right to vote is that it reduced the influence of the church rather than giving the women a political voice, then it is you that have to prove it.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

No, reduction of growth is not the first priority of western countries. In fact, the opposite is true: the average fertility rate of Europe is 1.6 [1]

For this reason, many european countries are scrambling to find tax and social policies to increase the fertility. For instance, having children in France effectively removes progressivity of taxation. In Germany, paid parental leave has been introduced since 2007.

You can see the same pattern all over Europe. And these countries are the countries where wealth has been in effect the longest.

(1)
http://en.wikiped...an_Union
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
No, reduction of growth is not the first priority of western countries. In fact, the opposite is true: the average fertility rate of Europe is 1.6
-This is the result of the priority of reducing growth. Which was made possible by destroying the religionist cultures which promoted it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
This enabled the influx of young, ambitious, pragmatic immigrants. What you are referring to is merely demographic adjustment. It does not compare to the massive social engineering Efforts of the 20th century.

Compare fertility rates from the 1800s with current rates. How much growth in Eurasia was capped by poverty, starvation, pogrom, disease, revolution and war?

The people in all areas affected by these social engineering Efforts no longer have to fear these things. The people in areas where prewar cultures still exist, are currently suffering with all of them. And those who can are gathering up their families and heading north.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

You seem to be accepting that western societies today try to boost their birth rates. At least some progress..

Now, you state that the reduction of fertility of Europe is a result of active efforts to reduce the population, but you show no evidence to this effect.

Who is tried to reduce the population growth? The government of Finland, France, UK, or Polen? According to [1] below, governments were opposing contraceptives, and it was often womens liberation movements that ended government mandated bans of them. This is a direct contraction of your statement.

(1)
http://en.wikiped..._control
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

You should also consider the fact that the availability of contraceptives has an extremely small impact on the total fertility of European countries [1]. The explanation is simple. The contraceptives allows a family to choose when they have their children, rather than just having them when chance has it.

(1)
http://en.wikiped...ertility
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2011
@Otto

One last thing for now. The reason for bringing up the population numbers of Europe is to show that it is not the population density alone that determines the incidence of war.

Now, if Europe can increase the population by a factor of 8 and still change from a state of constant war to a state of constant peace, clearly it cannot be population density alone that causes war.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
you state that the reduction of fertility of Europe is a result of active efforts to reduce the population, but you show no evidence to this effect.
-Only statistics showing the drastic reductions in the birthrates due in large part to family planning including ABORTIONS which you seem to forget every 10 posts or so. You got nothing better to do than ask the same questions over and over? Are you a troll then sir or madam?
http://www.johnst...310.html

-Peruse the whole site.
clearly it cannot be population density alone that causes war.
And as I said and which you should have understood, it is OVERPOPULATION which causes conflict, and which western society has been configured to restrict.

"Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. The term often refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth."
http://en.wikiped...pulation
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Who is tried to reduce the population growth? The government of Finland, France, UK, or Polen?... it was often womens liberation movements that ended government mandated bans of them. This is a direct contraction of your statement.
No its not. It depends what you mean by 'governments'.
http://en.wikiped...planning

Abortion and family planning statistics including those provided by mr johnston clearly show that womens lib was a very minor western blip on a very huge global undertaking, funded and promoted in part by NGOs such as the rockefeller foundation.

Upon reflection we can conclude that 'the right to choose' for women throughout affected regions in eurasia meant the right to choose not to stand in breadlines or send their children off to war.

US - 42M abortions since 1973;
The world - 1 BILLION abortions. Was communism womens lib? I suppose so. 200M abortions PREVENTED every year by contraception. The resulting stability is liberation for everyone.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

Your Johnsson-link was at last mildly interesting. First, your link about the family planning mentions almost no european countries, with the notable exception of Ireland. And, Ireland legalized abortion 1980, so Ireland is not an example of family planning reducing the total fertility of the women in a country.

So, you have no evidence of any effective family planning in an european country, nor a concious policy of the any government to reduce the nativity.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

I do forget neither contraceptives nor abortions. They are not, however, as sign of family planning! They have not - in Europe - been inforced by the government, but simply asked for by the individual inhabitants. There is a big difference here.

Wealth does not act directly to reduce fertility. You don't get a bundle of dollars in you hand hand, and oops!, you wife is not pregnant any more. Wealth acts by changing the attitudes towards family and security so that the families (and particularly the women) to choose:

(1) Contraceptives
(2) Abortion

So the large numbers you presented about abortion is a proof of wealth acting on the attitudes of the western societies.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

The reason for bringing up Europe as a case to study, is to show that:

(1) Population density can increase at the same time as the wealth increases
(2) High population density is not sufficient to cause wars
(3) Moderate religions can get along just fine with the modern liberal society
(4) Population growth can be reduced without government intervention due to economic growth
(5) Religions do not cause powerty

At least you agree with (2) above.

And, since (3) is true, we do not have to fear that religion will lead to war. We do not have to fear that moderate religions in a modern society will lead to overpopulation. In fact, from your sources, we see that not a single major religious group in Switzerland reaches 2.1 children per woman, i.e. the replacement rate.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

Now, for the developed world the situation may be different. I am aware of the fact that there have been many family planning campaignes in third world countries. Were they the primary reson for the rise of abortions in Africa? Probably. Contraceptions? Probably yes, again.

What you miss, though, is to show that it is religion in Africa rather than "culture" that is responsible for the high birth rate and/or wars. You also lack proof that an economic growth in african countries (and other third world countries)would not lead to a long term reduction of the total fertility.
cont ==>
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

Consider the fact that medieval Europe was not a great place.

There is one thing, though, that differentiates medieval Europe from modern Africa: a long reign of states. Whereas the african feels a loyalty towards the family, the village and the clan (in that order), the peasants of Europe were used to answering to a King.

This made it a lot easier to create the modern society. What we call corruption - stealing public means - is for them only loayalty to what matters (family, village..). Therefore, corruption is really widespread in Africa, and economic growth is very difficult. Note, that this has nothing to do with religion!
cont ==>
hb_
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
@Otto

What I hope is that by spreading litteracy and increasing the standard of living for the inhabitants of the african continent, the cultural pattern will change. Difficult, but not impossible.

In the end, the clan mentality has to go if they are to improve their situation.

Until they have reached this state, I do think it is a good idea to continue pushing for family planning. Of course, this is only a temporary remidy until the natural mechanisms of wealth kicks in and reduces the fertility rate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
Wealth does not act directly to reduce fertility. You don't get a bundle of dollars in you hand hand, and oops!, you wife is not pregnant any more. Wealth acts by changing the attitudes towards family and security so that the families (and particularly the women) to choose:
Ha! No, wealth in traditional pre-20th century Europe as everywhere meant the ability to have more children. Women before the 20th century HAD no right to choose. The same relative proportions of wealthy and poor existed then as now. AND abortion and contraception are very cheap now.

Back in 19th century Ireland excess children ended up in orphanages which was the equivalent of postnatal abortion. Most died.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
What I hope is that by spreading litteracy and increasing the standard of living for the inhabitants of the african continent, the cultural pattern will change. Difficult, but not impossible.
You are SO naive. Try teaching these people about western mores:
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-They are already well-educated to the fact that what you have to teach them is evil. Religions PREVENT education. These cultures must first be destroyed before the people can be westernized.
There is one thing, though, that differentiates medieval Europe from modern Africa: a long reign of states. Whereas the african feels a loyalty towards the family, the village and the clan (in that order), the peasants of Europe were used to answering to a King.
The proper term is tribe. You can keep making up your own theories or you can read the rechten paper and learn about tribal dynamics.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
@Otto

Let's start with the positive news. You do not contradict the fact that wealth acts through contraceptives and abortion to reduce fertility. Not bad.
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
@Otto

About the Rechten paper. As I stated above, judging from the abstract, it does not seem to support you claims, and it is lengthy. If you have something to say, state what it is and where (page number) the supporting evidence in the Rechten paper is. Repeatedly stating that "read the Rechten paper!" does not cut it. Your other "supporting" evidence ended ut disproving what you claimed (about the nativity of religious people in Europe, for instance).
hb_
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
@Otto

About the Ko Haram. You know I will not accept that the precense of one nut cult as proof that a whole continent is crazy, nor will I accept it as a good description of the general state of things.

If you want to prove that africans in general are religious nutcases, you must present some evidence.

Think about it. I can find representatives of atheism that happened to be crazy. Take Stalin, for instance. Now, that is no proof of all atheist being crazy or murderous, is it?