Comment by Albert Bakker on May 13, 2011 at 11:46am
Isn't this a bit unfair to polygamists though?
Comment by Mallory on May 13, 2011 at 11:50am
Or couples who just don't want kids?
Comment by Daniel Alderman-Eldredge on May 14, 2011 at 12:15am
I love the statement.  Not sure if this is your creation, but in the two single parent drawings, the child's non-parent attached arm should be down.  Having the arm up implies that the child wants/needs another parent there.  It draws attention to the idea that a parent is "missing" from the picture.  Other than that, I love it.
Comment by Albert Bakker on May 14, 2011 at 2:41am
Funny, I read that as if these kids are just elated. But now I see it too. Or maybe they're just pointing at something they want. I don't see too much teenage mothers though, incestuous dads with an alcohol problem and kids living with their grandparents because the mother's killed herself in an attempt to get aboard a UFO and the dad is serving a life sentence for robbing a liquor store and being caught with a kilo cocaine in the trunk while accidentally driving a stolen Datsun in a crowd of people in front of a restaurant after losing control of the car in a reckless chase trying to flee from the police.
Comment by J. Ratzinger on May 14, 2011 at 2:50pm

These single child families (in the diagram) are leading to our demographic extinction. Thankfully not everyone is limiting themselves to having only one child though, so while some cultures will disappear from the planet due to declining birthrates, others will flood in to fill the void just like when one species of animal goes extinct giving another the chance to flourish in that empty niche. I hear that the fall of the dinosaurs may have allowed mammals to gain a firmer foothold and flourish so such a fate for entire human cultures may be natural as well.

Time will tell I suppose, but if there are any fit ladies out there in need of the makings, I may be amenable to a covert transfer of genetic material as long as your impotent husbands or boyfriends are kept out of the loop.

 

Please understand that I am not in it for the base non-committal carnal pleasure of boinking other guys women at all, because that almost entirely sounds a little tiny bit unethical to me and has barely any appeal whatsoever unlike my desire to assist Habit Wearing Catholic Nuns to accomplish what they would be free to tell everyone was just another immaculate conception. I am a nice guy and only want to do my part to counteract the falling demographics, so no haters please.

Comment by Arcus on May 14, 2011 at 6:10pm

I see the political correctness and all... but shouldn't it be society that provides family? Why must one automatically assume that the ability to reproduce (or lack thereof) immediately provides even the slightest idea of effective upbringing of children?

Post a big fat: "They all equally suck" on top. It's a better point.

Comment by Daniel Alderman-Eldredge on May 14, 2011 at 6:22pm

@J.Ratzinger:

(I detect the parody in your post, and I acknowledge that...but there are people out there who believe that stuff, so I thought I'd react to it as if I didn't detect those things...)

You seem to have a conception about population density on our planet that defies rationality.  In 1900, the world population was 1,670,000,000 people.  That's a lot of people. (To put that into perspective, if you decided to count to that number at one number per second, it would take you roughly 53 years.).  In 1950, the world population was 2,521,000,000 people. (It would take about 80 years to count that high).  In 1999, the population had risen to 5,978,000,000 people (189 years), and at last count, 9 years later in 2008, the world population was 6,707,000,000 (212 years).  To get from 1.6 billion to 2.5 billion, it took 50 years.  To get from 5.9 billion to 6.7 billion, it took 9 years.  Our population is certainly not declining.  The rate of increase is decreasing, due to many factors, but the RATE OF INCREASE is decreasing....not the population... We are still on track for 8.9 billion by 2050 and 9.7 billion in 2150.  There are very, very few populations of people on the planet which are experiencing, or will experience, a decrease in population, at least in the foreseeable future.

Comment by J. Ratzinger on May 15, 2011 at 6:33am

@Daniel Alderman:

You know Dan, it's guys like you in the bars which really reduce the success rate of guys who lie and bullshit their way into the beds of ladies whose senses are dulled enough by alcohol to fall for just about any patter if delivered with a hint of veracity and a tinge of humor, so thanks for being so literal here. ( again, just joking )

 

I really have no good understanding of demographics or even large numbers, but I was attempting to comedically riff off the fact that the birthrate in Canada is around 1.4 children per woman which is according to Mark Steyn in his book 'America Alone' is a birthrate below replacement rate or what would be necessary to maintain the population at the current numbers. I recall looking up the birth rate in Canada a few years ago & it seemed to be something less than 1.5 per as I recall. Steyn also goes on to give the very low birth rates in Spain, Japan & some other countries so again, I am no demographer, and indeed admittedly inept with math but if Steyn is correct then the population in some countries is falling & they can only maintain the current poullation levels through immigration. I believe he indicated as well that the birthrates in some countries and predominently among muslim populations in many countries is very very high so I guess it all balances out to give an overall increase in total world population, even though there seems to be according to my very basic and limited understanding, to be a demographic shift taking place.

 

I did not calculate all the figures Steyn gave and would get muddled in the attempt in any case, so I leave the fine details up to those who have a facility with numbers which eludes me. Oh I saw a video on youtube referencing the upside down pyramid like falling birthrate in Western Cultures, and the right-side up increasing birthrate in predominantly muslim cultures but again, I have no idea if the numbers are correct or make sense because I am no demographer, and I must use a calculator to figure out the exact number of fingers and toes I have, so I may be totally misunderstanding what Mark Steyn in 'America Alone' was saying.

Comment by J. Ratzinger on May 15, 2011 at 6:53am

Lara Taylor:

Yes Laura, the graphic clearly shows that families can be made up of various combinations of adults, however what stood out to me was that in every family there was only one child which is pretty close to the reality in our modern western society where the old fashioned large family with four six or ten kids has fallen by the wayside in favor of most families having one child or sometimes two and it is almost a bizarre novelty to see someone with a large brood anymore.

 

The image above triggered my recollection of the book America Alone by Mark Steyn wherein he postulates that because most other western countries have falling birthrates below the rate which replace the parents, but America has a barely sustainable birthrate of 2.11 per woman which replaces the parents plus allows for a little increase in population, there will come a time when 'America' will be 'Alone' as it were in having a population which is not predominantly muslim in makeup. There might be the same or even more people on the planet as Daniel has indicated, but fewer of those people will be atheists like us, and more of them will be muslim than non muslim.

 

I do not know the birthrate among the worldwide population of Atheists, but again, if there are any fit, and fertile ladies out there who would like to counteract the Atheist march to population extinction call me at 555-9285. If any Nuns send photos of yourself in your Habit to ..... well never-mind because Daniel is just going to shag it all up for me again with his fixation on correctness.

Comment by Robert Karp on May 15, 2011 at 7:20am

I think this diagram represents the simple yet important fact of the diversity of the family and the need to accept whatever people define as it as such.

The polygamy comment is an interesting one, and I would say that would be a great topic for a forum discussion.

 

In terms of the population comments that are in this blog; Would it be fair to say, and I say this without looking at facts and figures, that very religious communities or cultures have more children to promulgate their religion and to ensure it's survival by increasing it's numbers? This planet is over populated and its resources cannot keep up with the demand.  This is another example of how religion will destroy this world. I am not saying we all go with the one-child policy of China, but maybe some limits should be put in place?  Just a thought. I love the diagram though.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 14 minutes ago. 27 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Unseen 2 hours ago. 49 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Ward Cressin 13 hours ago. 7 Replies

Blog Posts

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 2 Comments

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service