5 ms·
But that won't shape history, unless these people are also having children. If atheism coincides with having <2 children, it will only be a series of disconnect
by gurkendoktor 14y ago
But that won't shape history, unless these people are also having children. If atheism coincides with having <2 children, it will only be a series of disconnected blips in statistics.
- icebraining 14y agoWhy do you assume theism is a purely hereditary trait? A strong culture can influence other people's children.
- marshray 14y agoOnly temporarily, i.e., until they die having had < 2 children of their own.
- qu4z-2 14y agoYou seem to be begging the question. The point is that if they influence other people's children into being atheists too, then the atheist section of the population grows. If your argument is that an entirely atheist population would eventually die out altogether (having no other children to convert) then I misunderstood, but still that an equilibrium will be reached.
- marshray 14y agoI believe you are right that the equilibrium will be determined by the conversion and birth/death coefficients. But that equilibrium may still be at the point of zero atheists! The continued existence of every group still depends on (children + conversions_to - conversions_from) > 2.0 (per breeding pair). Furthermore, it seems plausible that conversion to a group depends positively on the dominance that group (e.g., more opportunities to be converted as you interact with random others in daily life). So all else being equal (or unknown), then my money's on the group with the highest birth rate.
- qu4z-2 14y agoAh, so I did misinterpret your statement first time 'round? I was thinking that "children" may be a function of total population. At least below some threshold people may have more kids than they would otherwise out of a sense of "duty", or the desire for continuation of the species (which seems to be inherent -- people sacrificing themselves to save "the world" usually do it to safe humanity).
- marshray 14y agoWe'll just go with me being unclear and possibly confused on that first round. If, in reality, people are having children out of a sense of duty to save the world from extinction due to underpopulation then I'm wondering why I didn't get the memo.
- qu4z-2 14y agoNot that they are having them for that reason currently, but it's not implausible they would start were the total human population of earth to drop below, say, 100k.
- yeellow 14y agoAre you trying to say that kids always follow the religion of their parents?
- gurkendoktor 14y agoNo - but see marshray's response - if one child of a theist couple "converts" to Atheism and then has 0-1 children, whereas the other child keeps the religion and has 2-5 children, that will not change a lot. Though I think I would need a proper simulation now to see if it works out as I imagine it to work out... :)