Shall the Religious inherit the Earth? Will the Wheel of History turns to the Gods? - Every day, while society stays further from God's Light, those in God's Light will multiply to overwealm societies that stray.

[Glad I couldn't help]

So you may be familiar with what the late conservative political commentator and alt-history buff John O'Reilly called "Demographic Dreadfuls": in short, Europe will be Arabized and Islamized due to the Muslim immigration and the low fertility of the native European versus that of the invaders. I am thinking of Mark Steyn and Bat Ye'or, for example. Eric Kaufman make some similar sounding arguments, but they are actually quite different, given that he is a secularist, and more importantly an academic, a Professor at Birkbeck College in London. So his arguments are more grounded in statistics (he think that Muslims would only be around 20% of the European population a century from now, for example) and more general as well, covering devlopments in North America and Israel as well. Recently, he wrote an opinion piece for the Metro newspaper summarizing his views.

Society will become conservative and sex will go back to procreation rather than recreation
Eric Kaufmann Professor of Politics at Birkbeck, University of London, and author of Whiteshift: Immigration, Populism and the Future of White Majorities Friday 31 May 2019 10:36 am

Population change means western societies will once again become pious and conservative. This means that sex could go back to just being about making babies again. To understand why, we need to rewind the tape of history to see what broke the link between sex and procreation in the West. The most important factor was a decline in the infant mortality rate. Queen Anne (1665-1714) lost all 18 of her pregnancies to miscarriage, stillbirth and early death. When so many children died young, you had to have a lot just to ensure two would survive to adulthood. By the time of Queen Victoria (1817-1901), all nine made it but even on Victoria’s deathbed, one in six British infants didn’t survive to their first birthday. The need for children to work the land remained important into the 20th century. In an age before the welfare state, children served as our old age pension. We see this in China today, where obligations of children to their parents and grandparents place a heavy burden on working adults, many of whom are products of the country’s one-child policy. Finally, we have contraception. While not unknown in earlier periods, the use of rubber from the mid-19th century and the birth control pill from the 1960s allowed couples to avoid unwanted pregnancies to a much greater degree than had been the case. What this all adds up to, according to proponents of the Second Demography Transition theory such as Ron Lesthaeghe, is that values, not material needs and barriers, now govern sex and reproduction.

In developed countries, there isn’t much difference between the birth rates of poor and rich people. Generally the poor and rich have somewhat higher fertility than those in the middle, but family size is not so tied to economics. The key factor is religion. Everywhere in the western world, women who attend religious services on a regular basis have considerably larger families than women who say they have no religion. While regular religious attenders almost always have a birth rate at or above the replacement level of two children for each mother, women without religious affiliation have below-replacement fertility, in some cases as low as one child per woman. This isn’t making a difference yet, because many religious children ‘convert’ to secularism. But in the long run, it is likely to be important: I project that secularisation will slow down and go into gradual reverse in Europe around 2050. This is already largely the case in London due to religious immigration. Population trends matter because most get religion the old-fashioned way: through birth. World-denying religious fundamentalist sects, meanwhile, which are concentrated in the West, have sky-high fertility. The ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Hutterites and Finnish Laestadian Lutherans average around six children per woman. Quiverfull neo-Calvinists in America, who abjure birth control, have even larger broods.

Orthodox Calvinists in the Netherlands, and Mormons in America, average twice the fertility of their compatriots. In Muslim-majority countries, the gap between Islamic moderates and fundamentalists is not as large but in the cities, women most opposed to Sharia law have half the number of children of women most in favour of Sharia. Anti-modern religious sects are also very effective at keeping their youth from assimilating to the secular mainstream. Thus, by 2050, most observant Jews in Britain and the United States are projected to be ultra-Orthodox. In Israel, the ultra-Orthodox could be the majority of Jews by the end of this century. In the US, given the trends of the past century, there will be 300 million Amish in the mid-2200s. Now factor in the ultra-Orthodox Jews, who are twice as large a group as the Amish, as well as the Hutterites and Quiverfull. Then add the Mormons, who already number 6 million, compared to just 300,000 Amish and you can see why the US will once again be a highly religious society. Don’t expect these groups to lose their fertility pattern with modernisation. They already live in the most modern environments, with plenty of resources and access to women’s education and contraception, actively rejecting small families.

Whereas traditionally-minded people in, say, rural Africa, will probably experience a decline in birth rate as their women receive education and move to the city, this is not the case for closed fundamentalist sects like the Amish who are saying ‘no, thank you’ to liberal modernity. More than that, fundamentalism is a response to liberal secularism, about drawing bright lines between tradition and modernity. One of the few routes out of the Amish community is via evangelical Christianity. If our society was Christian – religious but with modest birthrates – we would stand a better chance of converting members of fundamentalist sects to the mainstream. But the master trend in the West is secularisation, which paradoxically makes a fundamentalist future more likely. Meanwhile, as Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson point out in their new book Empty Planet, our entire world is rapidly moving to below-replacement fertility and population decline. An annex to a UN report projects that, on current fertility rates, Europe (including Russia) will plunge from around 750 million people in 2000 to little more than 200 million in 2300. And this assumes a long-run fertility of 1.85 that is above the current European average. In the US, declining religiosity among those of childbearing age is arguably a major reason for the country’s shift from its longstanding 2.1 fertility rate to its current sub-replacement level of 1.8. Millennials and Gen-Z seem more individualistic even than their parents, which may portend fertility rates dropping to levels found in East Asia and southern Europe (1.0 to 1.5). In my last book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth (Link added, see also reviews by Razib Khan and John Derbyshire -- ed.), I argue that as population drains from secular societies, religious populations will form an ever-larger share of the remnant. This is already happening in Israel, where secular Jews are being overtaken by religious Jews. Jerusalem has flipped from secularism to conservative religiosity due to demographics, and the entire country will follow suit. America is likely to experience this in the 2100s. As western societies perform this Israeli-style shift from secular liberalism to religious conservatism, sex will once again be about procreation, not recreation.

The projected growth of LDS and Old Order Amish throughout the 21st century. Source.

So, do you think his projections are that realistic? While I think his logic is sound, I do have some quibble with his story. First, I think secularization could still blunt the religious growth potential, although unlike what many liberals and secularists would like to believe, this advantage could be eroded under the right conditions, e.g. if economic growth stagnates over many decades. Second, I feel like the Israeli example may be to special to properly extrapolate to the rest of the world. Israeli Jews, even secular ones, have higher than expected birth rates for a developed country. It probably a combination of competition with the Palestinian Arabs and the shadow of the Holocaust. And I would note that even 50 year demographic projections should be taken with a grain of salt; too many factors can change to make them reliable.

 

[Rei is shit]

Related; https://jacobitemag.com/2017/06/20/modernitys-fertility-problem/

and an interesting article cited in the above;

Lee Kuan Yew drains your brains for short term gain - Bloody Shovel 2

Et tu, Harry? The paper, which projects 6.9 million people by 2030, charts the country’s strategies in managing a shrinking and ageing population. A question on Japan’s ageing society during the dialogue triggered the discussion. Mr Lee noted how Japan refused to take in migrants and that led to...

spandrell.com

 

[mindlessobserver]

There is something to be said for left leaning individuals removing themselves from the gene pool by not procreating for whatever reason. I would not go so far as to say this would mean religion would make a miraculous come back. Part of what makes any religion successful is state sanctioned and enforced support of it and I doubt we will ever go back to those days.

 

[Rand /pol/]

There is something to be said for left leaning individuals removing themselves from the gene pool by not procreating for whatever reason. I would not go so far as to say this would mean religion would make a miraculous come back. Part of what makes any religion successful is state sanctioned and enforced support of it and I doubt we will ever go back to those days.

Ideology isn't genetic. The political beliefs you have depend more on where you grew up and how you were raised not wether or not your dad voted for the guy with an R or D next to his name.

 

[SwanDive]

Religious people having more kids doesn't necessarily mean more religious people in the long term as people can and do change their religious beliefs over time. The author predicts that the likelihood of children becoming non-religious will begin to decrease, but I see little reason to believe this. The author says immigration will be the driver of this, however there's little reason to think that immigrants wouldn't be subject to similar non-religious conversion trends that resulted in the shift in the first place, especially over larger timescales.

Also, I'm not really sure where that map in the OP came from. The source is a twitter post, but that twitter post doesn't link to anywhere else and there's no study name in the image itself.

EDIT: Also, what the fuck is this thread title?

 

[ToroidalBoat]

So, do you think his projections are that realistic?

Mormonism -- if it survives -- will undoubtedly be different from what it is today.

It's already changed since it was first established, in both beliefs and rites.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You have failed to think about one thing: why did an almost exclusively religious world become a world with both religion and non-religion?

Because there could never have been the degree of secularization if the claims of religious people inheriting the world were true.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

I think specific sects of Christianity might thrive in the future, while others such as extreme Baptists in their modern form or prosperity theology show they don’t have the long term staying power to last more than a few generations
I know Catholicism is going to be a mess as it seems the Clergy in Rome and many local populations who consider themselves devout have completely different long term wants, which might one day explode.

 

[GranDuke]

The author predicts that the likelihood of children becoming non-religious will begin to decrease, but I see little reason to believe this. The author says immigration will be the driver of this, however there's little reason to think that immigrants wouldn't be subject to similar non-religious conversion trends that resulted in the shift in the first place, especially over larger timescales.

I think that one of the main reasons why atheism exploded was because nobody took it seriously and had no idea that it could get this popular. Now fundamentalists are on the defence and they are perfectly aware that they have to fight "modernity". They got whole alternative world view created that allows them to function in the society and at the same time ignore all the uncomfortable truths about their faith.

 

[wylfım]

You have failed to think about one thing: why did an almost exclusively religious world become a world with both religion and non-religion?

Because there could never have been the degree of secularization if the claims of religious people inheriting the world were true.

We're just experiencing a regression back to the mean, as expected. There's a reason religion evolved, and we've found out the hard way.

 

[Lone MacReady]

the future will absolutely be religious, unfortunately for the world that religion will be Islam unless Indian Hindus and Chinese Buddhists join forces to fight against the coming European-Middle Eastern Super Caliphate. The US will likely be split between mexico 2.0, the Wakandan cities, and white majority enclaves so we wont be able to help.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

So you may be familiar with what the late conservative political commentator and alt-history buff John O'Reilly called "Demographic Dreadfuls": in short, Europe will be Arabized and Islamized due to the Muslim immigration and the low fertility of the native European versus that of the invaders.

the future will absolutely be religious, unfortunately for the world that religion will be Islam unless Indian Hindus and Chinese Buddhists join forces to fight against the coming European-Middle Eastern Super Caliphate. The US will likely be split between mexico 2.0, the Wakandan cities, and white majority enclaves so we wont be able to help.

Won't happen. Even under 'high migration' projections, Muslims would make up less than 15% of Europe's total population by 2050, and probably still less than 20% by 2100. Most projections place them at just 10% by 2050, and I've read some reports which suggest that the growth in the number of Muslims after that date will primarily be down to longer life expectancy, not higher fertility.

What the statistics on fertility actually reveal is that fertility rates across the globe are dropping, and what's more, they're dropping the fastest among the groups which currently have the highest fertility rates, not the lowest. Among the groups which have lower fertility rates, the rates are generally stable.

I don't believe the pious will inherit the Earth. The statistics on religious conversion reveal that once fertility is taken into account, just about every religion is experiencing a net attrition of followers, not a net gain. Fertility is really the only edge religions have to grow themselves in a modern context, and it's an edge they're rapidly losing.

 

[Vlinny-kun]

Unless having 6 or 7 kids by 28 becomes a keystone of fifth wave feminism or we insitute brooding facilities in the near future, this will be the case. Any religion that does not promote there own version of "be fruitful and multiply" will struggle to keep followers in first world countries within the next century or two because they wouldn't pass on their teachings to enough people to compete with the upcoming devoted hordes that's mission in life is to wipe all other religions out using everything, including their dicks, not to mention that these types of religions typically regect the self-destructive factors of modernity while other religions (and atheism) tend to go along with and embrace them.

 

[Lemmingwise]

We're just experiencing a regression back to the mean, as expected. There's a reason religion evolved, and we've found out the hard way.

I think it's a similar idea to the differences between rural and urban people. The more people move to cities, the less kids they have. But many of the kids born in rural areas move to urban areas. It's similar with what happens with religion.

 

[spurger king]

It's important to keep in mind here that correlation doesn't equal causation. Personally I'm inclined to believe that the Jacobite article posted by @Rei is shit is basically right. Areas with lower fertility rates typically have lower rates of religiosity as well, but the main factor is education and GDP. The upshot, I suppose, is that as immigrants assimilate, their fertility rates will rapidly fall in pace with the native population's.

This is unfounded speculation on my part, but I also think that religion can have a causal effect on fertility, but only to the extent that it keeps people from fully embracing modern ways of living.

 

[Lemmingwise]

This is unfounded speculation on my part, but I also think that religion can have a causal effect on fertility, but only to the extent that it keeps people from fully embracing modern ways of living.

Aren't most religious values just more aligned with fertility than non-religiousness? Traditional gender roles (so women don't start trying for kids at 30-35), no abortion, restraints on sex that isn't open to conceiving, no transsexuality, restraints on homosexuality.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

It’s stupid to assume that just because religious people breed more, they will outnumber everybody else.

Among other problems, they have a high rate of conversion away, especially Mormons.

Suppose 50% of the population were religious, and religious people have 2x as many kids. If even a third of those children come out ubreligious, the religious share of the population will stagnate.

 

[La Luz Extinguido]

This doesn't take in consideration the fact that tiny scheming minorities always manipulate and control the thoughts and agenda the big ignorant animalistic masses (the vast majority of people in the planet) so religious vermin breeding like pests doesn't matter outside of the geopolitics on theocratic shitholes like the middle east so it's not a western concern.

Breeding competitions are exclusively for mentally handicapped trash like Muslims or white ethno-state enthusiasts.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Unless having 6 or 7 kids by 28 becomes a keystone of fifth wave feminism or we insitute brooding facilities in the near future, this will be the case. Any religion that does not promote there own version of "be fruitful and multiply" will struggle to keep followers in first world countries within the next century or two because they wouldn't pass on their teachings to enough people to compete with the upcoming devoted hordes that's mission in life is to wipe all other religions out using everything, including their dicks, not to mention that these types of religions typically regect the self-destructive factors of modernity while other religions (and atheism) tend to go along with and embrace them.

What a religion promotes and what it's adherents choose to follow are two separate things. Most major religions promote fertility, but the statistics indicate that this message is increasingly losing sway to economic factors which discourage it.

If you take a look at the data on global demographic trends, for instance, you'll find that the religion which is experiencing the sharpest decline in fertility is Islam. I find that most people are surprised when they find this out, but I can only assume that this is because they haven't properly looked at the data.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

But what if the children of the religious become atheist? It happened before.