Most of you have probably heard of this recent Pew Survey projecting how, from demographic data, the world’s religions will fare over the period between 2010 and 2050.
Sadly, although the number of the religously “unaffiliated” (nonbelievers plus believers without a church) will rise a tad during those four decades, the proportion will fall a tad. Further bad news, in my view—for I see Islam as the world’s most pernicious faith at the moment—is the rise of Islam, which by 2050 will almost equal Christians in both absolute numbers and percentage of the world population (Christianity is and will remain, barely, the world’s most popular faith). The growth of Islam is due to a much higher fertility of Muslims than of members of other faiths.
Here is the most important data, with absolute numbers on the left and percentages on the right. Muslim percentages rise most rapidly, Christians and Hindus stay about the same, while the unaffiliated and the Buddhists take a hit. The total world population in 2050 is estimated to be 9.3 billion, a 35% increase over its 2010 value. That’s just too many people!
Here is what will happen to us, the “nones” (also including those with belief in numinous stuff but without formal membership in a church):
Heathens need to have more kids! (Not really; there are too many already.) And of course the reason for all the growth of Islam is not conversions, but fertility excess. The unaffiliated have only a bit more than half the fertility of Muslims, and significantly less than Christians. That is, of course, because unbelievers don’t have strictures like not using contraception, and are, I suspect, more ecologically aware! That puts us having a fitness as low as Buddhists. But look how far Muslims are above everyone else in birthrate:
The growth of Islam is augmented by the fact that, among world religions, it has the highest proportion of adherents approaching childbearing age. The proportion of Muslims in 2010 under age 15 was 34%, higher than that of any other faith (it’s 27% for Christians, for instance, 21% for Jews, and a meager 19% for the unaffiliated).
Some of the change, but not much, is due to religious switching, and most of that switching is either away from Christianity or towards “unaffiliated status”. But the heartening rise in the numbers who give up formal religion is not enough to overcome our lower fertility:
The Pew article has a ton more data, including information about immigration, and about how the U.S. itself will change, summarized in the figure below. What’s happening to the U.S. gives us at least some good news: Christians will decline by 12%, largely displaced by the “nones”, who will increase by 9.2%. Muslims increase only slightly, from 0.9% to 2.1%, of the total population but that’s still more than a doubling in percentage.
Finally, while the good news is that the whole world is becoming less dominated by Christians, the bad news is that it’s being replaced not by nonbelief, but by Islam. This will certainly cause more inter-faith tensions in the next few decades. As the chart below shows, Islam will become the dominant faith in several places, but in the enlightened nations of France, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, the dominant “faith” will no longer be Christianity, but “unaffiliated”! And in Australia and the UK, the proportions of Christians will drop below half, though of course that’s a purely arbitrary cutoff given the panoply of faiths on offer.
What can we expect from all this? I’m not a prognosticator, but unless Islam undergoes a reformation (which is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls for in her latest book Heretic (a Professor Ceiling Cat Recommendation™), we can predict more bloodshed, more religious rivalry (which of course wouldn’t exist if the whole world were unbelievers), and more strife in general. Let us hope that Islamic extremism wanes, and that Islamic moderates stop countenancing it to such a large extent. I don’t believe that will happen by 2050, but unless I live to be over a hundred, I won’t know.
h/t: Alberto, Heather
I thought it was you who said Islam needed an Enlightenment, not a Reformation. Do I have my wires crossed?
Depends entirely on whether one means Reformation-like-the-Christian-one or reformation as a process of reforming. The latter would be similar to The Enlightenment.
True. I thought the word “reformation” was exchanged for “enlightenment” for precisely that reason. Opponents of those calling for reform in Islam have said, “Christianity had its reformation, and it was a bloody process.” I thought it was Coyne who pointed out that the Reformation isn’t what reformed Christianity; it was the Enlightenment.
>Opponents of those calling for reform in Islam have said, “Christianity had its reformation, and it was a bloody process.”
As if they believed that the process of enlightening Islamists would be a totally peaceful one…
BTW, we are already hundreds of years into the Enlightenment Age, and hundreds of millions of Christians still deny science.
^Citation needed.
Sub
I suspect that by 2050 and a world population of slightly over 9 billion, there is going to be a lot more trouble and I really don’t see that as sustainable. Technology can’t always pull our asses out of the fire and if we manage to hold on, at that high population we’ll all be pretty miserable.
We really need to work on educating people. Except in the most impoverished places, if we can get them educated, perhaps we can get them to leave their religion…..probably not something that would move the lever quickly enough though.
Too bad we couldn’t put education in the water. You know, like fluoride; do they fluoridate water in Canada?
Yep they put fluoride in the water here. Some cities have rebelled but most have not.
Well it is well documented in Dr. Strangelove to be an insidious Communist plot.
But do they put contraceptives in the water… ?
/@
No, women put them in the water system by peeing. 🙂
This is only true if children keep the faith or nonbelief of their parents, which is a big IF in my humble opinion.
I agree. The impact of the internet doesn’t show up in past data because it wasn’t a factor.
Studies have shown that one of the major causes of changing one’s religion (besides marriage which iirc is #1) is living in a community with religious diversity. The more young people are exposed to other young people with different views the harder it becomes to think of sacred Truths as either obvious or ‘sacred.’ When it comes to socialization and culture we’re more influenced by our peers than our parents. Witness the fundamentalist concerns with public education.
Hello internet. Once this is brought into more and more previously insulated/isolated communities, the less we can count on birth rates being predictive.
There’s also the in my opinion not insignificant factor involving God not really existing and religions being human creations. If “faith” loses its status and religions are forced to rely on the evidence which supports them on the common ground of reason, kiss them a long, slow, goodbye.
Internet is where religion goes to die.
Except that religion is using the internet every bit as avidly.
No doubt.
But…the religious and the irreligious also clash on the open public grounds in the middle, and it’s damned hard for the religious to keep their composure there when the irreligious start bringing up zombie intestines and child-raping priests. If they stay, they only do their own cause more damage, making it damned hard for them to compete anywhere save their own backwaters. And, once they cede the middle ground…they’re toast. Toast with a burn mark that kinda sorta looks like Jesus if you squint at it hard enough, sure…but still toast.
b&
So far the religious are making a lot more noise in the public squares than any nonbelievers. For one thing, they’re organized up the wazoo, while we’re the proverbial non-herdable.
That may be. But one mention of intestine-fondling zombies can undo huge amounts of carefully-prepared propaganda. It’s an asymmetrical fight that I don’t think the Christians have much hope of sustaining — especially not over the next generation as today’s kids grow up with Zombie Jesus as a well-known meme.
b&
Religions are. Anyone of one religion is potentially exposed to many others. (As well as rational, secular stuff.)
And that exposure can help erode faith.
/@
So many optimists here…
I wonder if we have figures showing trends in religiosity v. unfettered access to the Internet?
There was a survey recently about attitudes to the Internet in emerging and developing nations. Generally, it was viewed as a bad influence on morals. Not surprising for nations with generally very conservative religions and/or governments. But suggestive that the Internet is corrosive to established power structures.
/@
I hope so. It would sure make sense.
But I worry lest we underestimate “the other side.” It’s the internet that’s attracting European & American young adults to go join ISIS.
This is true. But last I checked, Dawkins’ Converts Corner, which is no longer maintained has far more stories of deconversion in that single place on the Internet than the number of Westerners ISIS has managed to recruit.
I think the biggest advantage we have against religion with the Internet is that the natural question that inevitably arises in anyone who is not already substantially indoctrinated is “how do I know my religion is true and this other one isn’t?” Then the Outsider’s Test of Faith comes into play and there’s enough skeptical sites out there that anyone with a modicum of curiosity is bound to run into them.
The survey: http://ow.ly/LgAYs
/@
I’d like to see further surveys on why the Internet is perceived to have a negative effect on morality. I’d suspect it could have to do with the fact that developing countries are religious and see the Internet as a vast resource of competing ideas, completely antithetical to divine command type moralities.
That was my hypothesis.
Anecdotally, my path from (admittedly vague) Catholicism to atheism was helped early on by Erich von Däniken’s books. Utter woo, of course, but in my pre-teen brain they planted the idea that religious stories could have a non-supernatural origin. So even exposure to bad ideas can weaken faith.
/@
Oddly, my earliest seeds of doubt were planted by Carl Sagan and I never even registered who he was until I was an adult. I remember seeing commercials with his famous “question everything” statement. As a child of very devout Catholics, I wasn’t allowed to watch Cosmos, but somehow his soothing voice stuck with me and there was always that nagging issue about why we should question everything except for the Church. So, yes, exposure weakens faith, sometimes even if it is only for a few seconds.
A promising survey, for sure.
Those projections are ignoring a truly, literally vital factor.
There isn’t enough petroleum in the ground to grow the crops to feed that many people.
Yes, there are other energy sources…but diesel is what we use to power farm machinery and crude oil is the feedstock for fertilizers and pesticides. Other sources can be adapted to serve such purposes…but those other sources either are less plentiful than petroleum or significantly more expensive.
That last factor is the real killer. The simple economics of the rising cost of energy is going to wreak global havoc in ways that will limit populations, and those ways aren’t going to be pretty. Long before wells actually start running dry in significant numbers, prices are going to climb to the point that they might as well be dry because nobody can afford to pay what it’ll cost to run the pump.
So…I wouldn’t worry too much about shifting demographics with population growth. The population ain’t gonna grow like that because we’ll have even bigger problems to worry about….
b&
I think you’re right, and the prospects are dismal. Since the invention of synthetic fertilizers, the world population has soared, and famines have been due more to political causes than to actual food shortages. But at 9+ billion, we’ll hit another ceiling, and extreme instability, both politically and environmentally, is the predictable outcome.
Sadly, try explaining that to the religious, who are impervious to facts.
Ben, I agree about this, in general. But I don’t think it will bite by 2050 (or at least not worse than the $100+/bbl oil period we’ve just been through_). 2090 for sure though.
Unless there is a major interruption from some petro zone around the world. If Russia ever gets fully back in the game and Iran too, there will be quite a glut for a while. The Bakken reserves will probably remain (in the ground) longer than expected a few years ago due to the plunge in oil prices. There really is a glut right now. How long will it last? Quite a while, it seem to me. Could be 20 years’ worth.
Ans that’s rather bad in my opinion, because it removes a lot of the pressure we had for development of alternatives. And, it was depressing to hear that the initial reactions of our fellow ‘Muricans to the drop in oil/gas/petrol prices has been: Whoo hoo! Buy more gas-hogging SUVs. 🙁
In the end, there’s no question of the outcome. “They” aren’t making any more petroleum.
The big question about timing is what fraction of global oil reserves we’ve already extracted…and, everywhere I’ve looked, that figure is always “roughly half.” In other words, this, right here, right now, today, is what peak oil looks like.
We can keep extracting at the historical exponentially increasing rate that’s been the ultimate engine of economic growth and run out in a decade.
We can cap extraction at today’s level, forsake growth (“stagflation”), and stretch that out to maybe 2050 if we’re lucky — but, again, that assumes zero growth.
We can stretch the remaining oil out for a century or so, but only with an exponential decrease in the rate of extraction, with the global economy (and population) shrinking back to where it was in 1980 by 2050.
And, no matter which route we attempt, prices will skyrocket. We’re already drilling wells miles deep / long with wellheads a mile beneath the waves, and we’re sucking dry Canadian tar sands, the proverbial bad joke last-ditch desperation of the industry, and even shale oil is a big thing. Those sources are all we have left, and they’re not cheap to extract, and they’re not very good quality.
It’d be great if you’re right…but I just don’t see it.
b&
And all of that is ignoring the effect of burning it all, which would ensure disastrous climate change….
I’m less worried about CO2 pollution than I was some time ago. We’re going to hit limits of extraction and consumption long before CO2 pollution gets much worse than it already is…and, if we survive those limits it not only won’t be through use of carbon-based energy sources, but we’ll have enough surplus (solar) energy to be able to turn atmospheric CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons and pump it back into the ground.
Yes, that’s quite the fantasy picture I just painted, and not necessarily all that realistic. But it’s about the least unrealistic future I see for our civilization that doesn’t result in catastrophic collapse (and, even then, won’t avoid lots of chaos).
b&
Before the growth can stop, there will be unrest in some parts of the world. National securities of every nation are tied to energy. Barring major advancements in energy technology sectors, a large number of people with relatively low GDP will be unhappy: this is bad for humanity, the environment, and the whole of our ecosystem.
Even with major energy advancements, we’re still seriously fucked.
What we need isn’t energy…it’s oil. Oil for feedstocks for fertilizer and pesticides and plastics. Oil for diesel for transportation fuel. Oil for lubricants and sealants and paving and roofing and and and and…
…and mere energy is a poor substitute for oil.
With enough energy, you can make oil, from atmospheric CO2 if nothing else. But that takes a lot of energy.
The not-miserable news is that we can put something of a cap on how expensive things might get: about $200 / barrel. At those prices, making oil using solar photovoltaic energy becomes economically competitive. Much more than that, and it’s an economic no-brainer. Plus, solar photovoltaics are becoming cheaper all the time, and that figure will slowly drop.
The big question is, again, an economic one. I don’t think our economy can actually function with oil at $200/bbl. I’m not sure people can pay that much, even if they have no other choice. And that’s a problem for the mining companies, because they’re not going to be able to economically extract oil at cheaper prices — they won’t be able to pay their workers, or even pay for the diesel they need to make more diesel.
If we can get past that economic hurdle…well, the future beyond that, though not exactly cheap, would be overflowing with more energy than you could dream of using. Just US residential rooftops, if covered in solar panels using today’s off-the-shelf home improvement technology, would meet the entire planet’s total energy needs — and you can imagine the sort of insane luxury of energy that would represent if we kept all that energy to ourselves and everybody else generated similar amounts for themselves.
But can we afford the capital investment required to get there? I’m quite skepitcal.
b&
Also, potable water.
I think we can afford it, but we are not willing to buy it. Urgency can only come when the majority of humans live in fear of not having enough food for tomorrow.
Of course, “affordability” is a slippery concept. We can apparently afford to spend trillions of dollars killing brown people, but we can’t even afford mere billions feeding, housing, and educating our own children.
For good or ill, it is those in our society with soul-crushing piles of cash who decide what is and isn’t affordable…and they’re not likely to consider petroleum replacements that cost twice today’s petroleum affordable until long after the petroleum is significantly more expensive.
b&
It’s also worth pointing out that any land used to grow oil, or other energy sources like ethanol, is land that isn’t growing food. You can’t have it both ways. So the more ethanol you grow, the more expensive food will become.
That’s the great thing about rooftop solar. More surface area than we could dream of using, and it’s already right where it’s needed with no need to sacrifice room that could be put to better use.
Some of the algae biodiesel reactor ideas would use sealed containers in bays and wouldn’t need to use any resources we’re already using (other than the construction materials, of course).
But…corn in the States gets a lot of its energy from petroleum-based fertilizer. As I recall, it’s still a net energy gain, but just barely. Switchgrass in the States is a less-bad return on energy investment, and sugar cane in the tropics starts to become almost not insane.
Even still…rooftop solar provides an awful lot more energy per square foot, doesn’t require any maintenance to speak of, and uses the same land area you’re already using.
b&
Hunger. Famine. Scarce resources.
Usually lead to genocide. I see Muslims killing each other in future wars.
What “future”? They’re already doing that today — and have been for ages. At the height of the Cold War there was the Iran-Iraq War, in which Saddam Hussein was the good guy….
b&
Yes, but I am thinking they will perhaps become even more extreme.
It’s not just fossil fuels, it’s water. Climate change means there simply isn’t enough water flowing from places like the Himalayas for the billions it will have to serve based on projections. The Sahara is extending by millions of square hectares a year. Even if an alternative energy source is found to grow food, it’s no good without water.
I may be remembering this wrong, but I think the biggest year of oil production, never since beaten, was in the 1960s. We feel like we’re using more because we’ve become more efficient.
With enough energy, you can make all the clean water you could ever want from any unsuitable source — whether it be sewage, seawater, or whatever.
The problem, of course, is that energy is exactly that other commodity we’re running out of….
b&
I think you are too pessimistic, by quite a bit. 8% of worldwide energy is used in the chemical industry (that includes carbon energy sources imbedded in pesticides, polymers, and fertilizers). The most important fertilizer, by far, is ammonia and that requires hydrogen and energy – both of which can come from renewable energy. While it is, in the long run, stupid to burn petroleum (it is cheaper), renewable derived electric power can be used with coal to replace feedstock petroleum – without making CO₂ in the process. In fact, The energy storage problem of renewable energy could potentially be more easily lessened in industrial chemical production than in transportation, commercial or residential energy use.
I wish people pushing hydrogen cars would just stop – its the dumbest p[ossible use of hydrogen! (Elon Musk is totally right about that.) If solar water splitting pans out it is much more important to use hydrogen to eliminate fossil fuels now used in steam reforming of natural gas and coal. That’s methane without making CO₂ or using petroleum. Lots of research to effectively run “petroleum cracking” backwards (making higher hydrocarbons from lower ones) is underway now, and I think it is a solvable problem.
Your first paragraph is correct about the technical possibilities…but my concerns aren’t technological but financial. All that’s very doable, plus we’ve got all sorts of not-overly-fanciful options going in labs that might help such as bioengineering algae to excrete oil. The problem is that all of these options are a lot more expensive than getting careless with a pickaxe in Texas and creating a fountain-fed lake of oil that just needs to get filtered through a dirty sock before you truck it to the refinery.
Your last paragraph is spot-on. Hydrogen has got to be the most idiotic alternative transportation fuel in the history of the industry. Not only do you have to replace the fleet, but you’ve got all the energy inefficiencies of reforming petrochemical hydrocarbons. Either turn coal into gasoline (as you describe by sequestering electric plant CO2 emissions and using solar or wind power to turn the CO2 into syngas or an equivalent feedstock) and pump that into the tanks of the existing fleet; or, if you’re going to replace the fleet, electrify it at the same time.
The great potential of electric, aside from the insanely superior power : weight ratios and reduced maintenance and the like, is that you can change energy sources without having to replace the fleet. We could initially go electric with coal, and then transition over time to solar — and the same vehicle would be just as happy running on either.
The big hurdle with electric vehicles, of course, is the energy density of batteries…aka range. For most commuting households, having at least one electric vehicle already is the clear winner even though many don’t realize it. But the next generation of EVs from the major manufacturers, due out in the coming model year, is expected to have Tesla-like range…and that’ll be a tipping point. Few people actually ever want to drive 200 miles (~3 hours) without stopping to take a break, and starting every commute with a full “tank” (and never have to stop at a gas station) makes such a vehicle significantly superior in all respects to a gasoline-powered equivalent.
I’m still waiting for the electric pony cars — the Mustang, Camaro, Charger, and the like. It’ll be near-trivial for the big manufacturers to make them dramatically outperform their gasoline-powered equivalents. Make one with an almost-100-mile range (like the current generation of EVs) but that beats the pants off a Lamborghini and they won’t be able to sell them fast enough.
Cheers,
b&
Maybe, or maybe water and soil will be exhausted first. Water is running out now in California, for example. The Ogallala aquifer is also being rapidly drained. I believe conditions are similar in many places elsewhere.
As I recall, Paul Ehrlich used to say (last time I read one of his books) that topsoil would probably give out first. It’ll be Grapes of Wrath for everyone.
Could well be. And it’s a lot easier to create freshwater from seawater than it is to create topsoil from bedrock….
b&
I strongly recommend reading Maajid Nawaz’a Radical for more on reform of Islam (which he is also, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others working reform Islam, at great personal risk.)
I also strongly recommend reading Going Clear by Lawrence Wright (almost done reading it). It provides a history of Scientology. A scary history.
Of particular interest is their successful fight to regain tax-exempt status in the US. As you read some of the testimony in that case, it’s clear that they aren’t really much different from other religions. Rather, like Mormonism, they are just more clearly and broadly subject to the glare of history, because they are so recent.
Holy Hoppin’ Hank, the nonsense they profess to believe in!
It’s obvious that Hubbard was simply a bi-polar egomaniac with delusions of grandeur (sound like Joe Smith?) who wanted lots of money, power, and young bootie. His pronouncements were such obvious nonsense blatherings; but his minions believed them. The credulity of human apes never ceases to amaze.
footnote: When I first heard of Hubbard, many years ago, I thought his first name was Elrond for a long time. 🙂
Saul / Paul of Tarsus, too.
b&
Yes. The parallels with the western monotheisms is pretty striking.
As I read the book, I’m thinking: This is just like every religion, more or less. It’s just that the sordid details of most are lost in the fog of the distant past.
Or possibly even ARE striking … sheesh.
We like to make fun of the Scientologists with their thetans and Xenu and exploding volcanoes and the like…but Christianity is every bit as bizarre with its talking snakes and zombie snuff pr0n and the rest. Just as bizarre, in fact, as Hinduism with its multiply-appendaged monkey elephant gods. The only difference is that it’s a familiar bizarreness….
b&
Indeed. After reading Going Clear, my reaction to Scientology (which was mirth) has become disgust and a frisson of fear. The same kind of disgust and fear I feel when reading about the violence perpetrated by other religions.
For instance, Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven (and on the same subject I can recommend Wallace Stegner’s Mormon Country and The Mormon Trail.) Or the Bible. Or any history of India.
The tactics they (Scientology’s controlling group) use are more or less the same as the Mafia (or any other group of criminal thugs).
I’d like to read Nawaz’s book. I’m a big fan of his. Another reformist who makes my heart swell is Irshad Manji. She’s a no-bullshit realist, and there’s a great interview between her and the infinitely charmless Mehdi Hasan(that you might already have seen).
Thanks!
“Infinitely charmless”
That is a great description of radical fundamentalists of any religion. I need to remember that dig…or pwn as it were.
I am afraid Diana mentioned the most import part of the equation – education and that will very likely be the downfall more than population increase. Just take the U.S. as an example – no growth in population really and less religion. Good news but with declining education it means nothing.
Poverty is as much a cause of the high population and runs side by side with ignorance. Always, just where you don’t need it. Asia and Africa will be the great problem as far as increased population.
All this population study should tell the current administration in Israel that continued confrontation with everyone around you is a loser of a plan. Apparently distrust and hate has overcome smarter behavior.
I don’t understand your comment about Israel. how is not letting your neighbors kill you the same as confrontation? Maybe you should direct that comment at those like Hamas whose stated goal is the eradication of Israel.
Your definition of confrontation is different than mine. I respect what Israel has to deal with as much as anyone but they have become too one dimensional with the current guy in charge.
Look at the current attitude. He does nothing but bad mouth all negotiations with Iran. So where are his solutions, where are his ideas to improve the condition?? We can’t trust them so just bomb.
I was also referring to the population discussion. Look at the growing population of Israel’s enemies all around. Is confrontation a realistic future??
I don’t wish to derail the thread, but you make it seem like you think the Middle East would suddenly embrace Israel as a neighbor if Netanyahu wasn’t in charge. That doesn’t seem likely since their neighbors have been trying to kill them for a few thousand years.
How would you like Israel to proceed? Are you suggesting the Israel should relocate? I’d like to know what you think Israel could do that would stop a large portion of the Middle East from trying to kill them simply because they’re Jews?
As for bad mouthing Iran, I certainly wouldn’t want the people trying to kill me armed with nuclear weapons.
I will say very little because it is very clear you’re mind is long made up. But you really should not put words or ideas on the other person who said no such thing. You have a one track mind as straight as Netanyahu so what is the point. Just stay with that “trying to kill them for a few thousand years” and see where it takes you.
Suggesting Israel should relocate – please give me a break.
Help me understand. You said “All this population study should tell the current administration in Israel that continued confrontation with everyone around you is a loser of a plan.” That is putting the onus of Middle East peace squarely on Israel. If you meant someone other than Israel you should have mentioned them.
Seriously, do you have a plan that would stop the confrontation between Israel and say Hamas who has the eradication of Israel in their charter, or Iran, which doesn’t recognize Israel as a country? Why is the focus on what Israel needs to do?
Apologies to PCC for derailing the thread.
The projected upward trend for “nones” in the US data is entirely straight, which doesn’t look likely, i.e. it’s a purely arithmetic projection of changes from the last ten years or so. But those changes came about through unforeseeable events such as the sudden prominence of New Atheists, increasing awareness of religious influence in US life, visceral disgust with Bush and his religious cronies et al. Other, similarly unforeseeable factors will likely contribute to a further upswing in the coming decades. So the data is missing the sense of a movement with momentum behind it. I’m pretty sure “nones” are going to be a greater proportion in the US by 2050 than projected here.
In interpreting the proportion of religious adherents from other countries, it’s important to remember that the proportion of “Christians”, if derived from census data, probably vastly overestimates the identification with faith that the name suggests. A large proportion of those notional UK Christians would, in the terms Pew applies to the US, be counted as “nones” already — that is, in their attitudes and actions they are functionally non-religious. The Dawkins Foundation’s detailed questionnaire following up the results of the UK 2011 census results made that abundantly clear.
I tend to agree. It’s how useful innovations “diffuse”. Such changes have a tendency to follow S-shaped curves. The age structure of nonbelief is a big clue, as well.
The British Social Attitudes Survey shows “nones” at 50%. It’s widely acknowledge that the census quaestions were flawed. (Not by the government, of course.)
/@
“Christians” is a rather monolithic term for such a squabbling group. I would guess that the market share of Catholics will continue to go down and Evangelicals will go up (especially as our world becomes more apocalyptic).
If this happens, “nones” may well become the largest single religious group. If “nones” equals “secularists”, and if “nones” become more politically powerful, there might be hope that we could have policies that are more rational.
And, if we ARE going to be the largest single religious group, we really have an ethical responsibility to harness as much political power as possible. Otherwise, the current crop of Repugnican religious fascists in Washington are going to seem downright moderate.
The “nones” are already vastly underrepresented in the political scene and mass media. It may be very important for our future as a nation and species to change that.
This has always seemed inevitable to me. It is the religious who perceive a divine imperative to be fruitful and multiply. It is the religious who deny that a growing human population places unsustainable demands on our planet’s resources. It is the religious who believe that an apocalypse will be a glorious thing (and are therefore blissfully untroubled by thoughts about how bad things might get when populous, nuclear-armed nations find themselves in a desperate fight over dwindling resources). Non-believers don’t have as many children, and they don’t indocrinate the children that they do have. The nones can grow in numbers only by winning the war of ideas.
If I’m not mistaken, these number make no assumptions about what political/social upheavals may — I think probably — will happen in the next 4 decades.
I’m optimistic that religious affiliation will drop off when/if the poorest of the middle eastern countries finally see the results of an increasing secularism, which I think is inevitable.
I don’t think I’ve ever paid too much attention to demographic predictions – this is the first time I’ve been concerned. I’m struggling against the innate liberal impulse to shrug aside the rise of Islam and say ‘so what?’, but the never-ending parade of atrocities, and the legions of accomodationists and pseudo-moderates who spend their days subtly, and less subtly, legitimising intolerance, censorship and murder, are too depressing to ignore.
Every day feels like it brings with it a new test of the extent to which liberal society should tolerate the intolerable. It’ll be interesting, to say the least, to see where the liberal left draw the line with Islam, or more accurately, whether they see a line at all. So far they seem remarkably sanguine about the modern world’s most intolerant, repressive and expansionist ideology, and expressing concern over population demographics is, as far as a lot of them are concerned, tantamount to joining the BNP, getting a swastika tattoo or moving to Chipping Norton.
What would it actually take to get other left-wing liberals to admit that Islam has serious problems? After the Paris killings – when, contrary to reason, they only seemed to grow more fervent and aggressively defensive – I don’t know any more.
Articles like this ruin my day
Just your day? Consider yourself lucky.
For me, they ruin the entire century…
…and then Baihu demands a belly rub, I divert my attention to something more immediately important, and all is good for the rest of the day.
b&
I bury myself in artistic pursuits since the overwhelming bullshit just keeps on coming. I am happy for the elixir of art, though I know it won’t solve religious intolerance and extremism. sigh.
Giving belly rubs is also an important distraction.
And good noms.
I have dug a bit further into these numbers and this is what I came up with for my country (Netherlands)*:
10,1% visits a religious service every week
3,6% visits a religious service 2-3 times a month.
3,1% visits a religious service once a month.
6,9% visits a religious service less than once a month.
76,4% visits seldomly or never a religious service
So it’s true that over 50% of the population is religious. The actual number is 53%**. But only 10% of the population bothers to show up at religious services. Most people don’t show up at all – or only at christmas (in my experience).
source: *http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/20EC6E0B-B87A-4CFE-818B-579FB779009F/0/20140209b15art.pdf (p. 5)
**Ibid, p. 4.
+ funerals and weddings.
The grey ‘unaffiliated’ wedge in US demographics is pure happiness.
In today’s and tomorrow’s economy when people pick up a telephone they will have to continually self censor what they see. The internet is becoming too transparent for fundamental belief systems to live uncriticized. This, I believe, will make fanaticals become more fringe.
That would be good. I always assumed the internet would just speed up the rate of progress in all the areas i care about – you know, the usual liberal-lefty areas. And I also assumed that increased information exchnge and interconnectivity would mean shitty ideas would get exposed as shitty even more quickly. Hasn’t quite worked out that way so far…
I’m still confident that, in the long run, the free exchange of ideas can only be bad for religion, but at the moment the internet’s great for Islam.
It must also be an unprecedentedly unifying force for a religion that has always held sacred the Ummah, or the concept of ‘the Muslim world’. Now there really is a centralising process that enables Muslims from all over the world to communicate and unite in a way that was only ever partially possible in the past. I’d never though of it ’til now but the internet fits Islam like a glove. There’s no way ISIS would exist without it. It’s maybe no surprise that Islamic expansionism and immigrant Muslim disaffection for their western home countries has flourished as the internet has emerged.
It actually will be very interesting to see what comes of so many social connections that are formed in the Muslim world. Informationally, it is impossible the system remain closed. Some little teenager is going to find Jefferson and Paine and Mill in some pdf that slips through the cracks and think wait a minute…
Yes, Saul, I agree completely.
I think there should be a limit on how many children any couple can have. That worked out pretty well in China, right?
China was a great example of how not to limit population growth.
What would make much more sense…is free universal no-questions-asked birth control for all. Free condom dispensers on every corner, prescription forms of birth control available for free from any pharmacy with free medical consultation, free surgical birth control operations at any facility that does abdominal surgeries, and so on. All with no questions asked aside from pertinent ones about medical history and the like. With enough medical professionals and facilities made available for wait times to be insignificant, and so on.
This would, of course, include the same access to birth control for students, the set of humans most at risk for unwanted pregnancy. And students younger than sexual maturity would have to be taught about birth control well in advance so it’s something perfectly normal and expected when they have matured.
Make it so damned easy to not have children that it becomes the default position — and then those who really want to go out of their way to have children can do so.
b&
By all means.
When I got my vasectomy, they required that I fill in a questionnaire, consult with the doctor, and view a canned video discussing the issues around a (more or less) permanent sterilization procedure.
I kind of thought it was overkill — I knew exactly what I was doing; my wife and I had had all the kids we were going to (1) and she had done all the work/risk up until that point.
But after viewing the video I realized that many men might not have really thought things through. I think real information (informed consent) is very important (for permanent procedures or riskier ones).
Aren’t vasectomies reversible? I have an uncle that was a medical illustrator and he witnessed a very disturbing reverse vasectomy; I guess the anesthesia didn’t work and the guy was screaming. This was over 20 years ago, so I would think they would do a better job of it today.
That’s an illustration that needs to be in anesthesia textbooks!
anesthesiology, I mean.
China had an immediate pressing population problem. Do you really think they had the resources you mention, to be so freely applied over such a huge disparate area and population.
They needed to act otherwise you may be looking at 2 billion not so stable Chinese.
Speaking of China was that population represented in the poll?
What is Chinas influence of, and tolerance of religious behaviour going to be?
Whatever it is, it will be important.
Erm…how do you think China planned to implement its policy without easy access to birth control?
Not to mention, China has long been the 800-pound gorilla of international industrial manufacturing. They’d have no trouble supplying their own with condoms — or, much cheaper and more effective, IUDs. The various surgeries are also typically routine and low-risk; it would’t be too onerous to train an army of surgeons just for that purpose.
b&
Possibly now, not then.
They didn’t have the luxury of possibly training an army of surgeons and implementing those other measures and sitting back and waiting to see if voluntarism would work.
It was enacted in the ’80s, which is when their economy was taking off — the sleeping dragon awakening and all that.
b&
It was planned in the late 70’s when they really only just getting started.
I still don’t think they had the infrastructure.
I have been going of a vague memory of states of affairs back then, being an ex left lefty, but I checked a bit.
Wiki says that In 1975 only 139,800 automobiles were produced annually.
Probably not enough to drive all those supplies and surgeons around.
It was my understanding that there were still huge backwater areas.
I’ll meet you half way.
…and, again. They weren’t stupid enough to think that population control can work without birth control. They certainly couldn’t afford the type of all-inclusive free-for-all I’m proposing, but they equally certain could afford something.
b&
I found this to be interesting
At first, Mao Zedong encouraged large families and outlawed abortion and the use of contraception, urging women to produce offspring who would boost the workforce and the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army. My mother dutifully gave birth to five children. Our neighbour, Mrs Wang, produced 11, and was declared a “Heroine Mother” by the local authorities and given a large red rosette to pin to her lapel.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/06/chinas-barbaric-one-child-policy
Yes, the way it’s been implemented in China is indefensible.
It’s good that contraception is available to all…but very bad that it’s also imposed on all.
b&
Apart from that I wonder what their impact on the possible religious proclivities will be in the future.
I don’t see the same tolerance of religious nastiness as we seem to be encouraging or allowing.
Not us, those other us’s.
Religion as we understand it in the West doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as big in China…and, almost as if to make up for it, garden-variety folk superstition runs amok. There’s all the tigers killed for their penises, for example.
I have hopes that such superstitions might be more amenable to reform than religion. Viagra is demonstrably far superior to tiger penis potion, and people care much more about the results than the justification for why something should work but isn’t actually all that effective.
b&
The word ‘indefensible’ is easy to throw around when viewing something out of historical and other contexts.
It is also easy use on the basis of ‘snapshot’ views of various issues something might have, such as law enforcement abuse.
It is indefensible that a country would kill thousands of women and children in response to a couple of casualties of their own.
If you think my attitude towards American foreign policy since at least the Korean War is anything other than disgust and contempt, you don’t know me very well….
b&
Religion is beneficial for reproductive success 🙂
The good news is that people tend to be better informed, which in turn has a tendency to produce more liberals.
The other good news: the religious are as divided as the liberal.
The last good news: the future is not easily predictable.
Peepuk – always the bearer of good news;) Keep it up – United play Villa next. I’d like a good result please…
No problem : 1-2
3-1 and a brace from the little Spanish genius Herrera. Ta very much!
Broad-based wealth and education are significant when it comes to people demanding democracy and secularism. I wonder how much those factors have been taken into account for poorer countries, which currently are more likely to be Muslim? My country, NZ, one likely to be majority nones, was the first (along with Oz) to mandate education for all children, and the first by years to give the vote to women.
The rise in the Nones isn’t because of birth rate, it’s because of the spread of knowledge, and if Muslim majority countries educate their women, and more of their children in general, will their population remain Muslim, especially fundamentalist Muslim? Even in the US, the lower the average education level of a state, the higher the religiosity.
There’s still enormous scope for increasing the education and availability of things like the Internet in even first world countries. We have almost finished rolling out ultra fast broadband to every school in our country. Imagine if every kid in the world had that access.
Of course, hundreds of millions will struggle even to find enough food for their bodies, let alone their brains.
I’m afraid everything you say is correct. Education can reverse the negative impact of religion and do the same for population.
The extreme branches of Islam are a big stop sign for education and certainly for all women.
However, Christianity was the same for these things for a long time. The Muslims have to fix it for themselves.
Correct.
Education, especially including women equally, go hand in hand with increased standards of living and reduced religiosity.
We have the means to release women from the bondage of continuing unwanted pregnancy.
We are gaining the means world wide, more and more, to provide information and education, general education too but this area in particular. There must be so many women who don’t know or are prevented from knowing, primarily by religious beliefs, that such relief is available and ok.
As far as I can tell birth control must be one of the greatest emancipators of women, of all.
There may be some good work done by Christians in far flung places but it is easily offset by the great evil of keeping birth control from any women who wants it.
“Islam … will almost equal Christians in both absolute numbers and percentage of the world population.”
I’d like to share a rather bold prediction of my own, which is that if and when one of those two conditions is true, the other will also be true.
Don’t go out on a limb, Dr. I.
Aside from the other factors people have mentioned, education of women seems to be the most important in affecting birthrate. No surprise that Muslim-dominated nations fall behind the average in education of women. But if that changes, I would expect both lowered birthrates and increased unbelief. If.
When I looked at the maps of the projected greatest increases in the numbers for Islam it seemed to be all in countries that are prime candidates for ecological disasters and famine.
FWIW, the figure of 45.4% Xtian for the UK in 2050 looks overblown. Already by some counts (sorry, can’t find the refs) the ‘Nones’ are well over 50%.
The solution is simple.
I would like to see stratification of the data on Islam, particularly showing projections for fundamentalist Muslims (those who profess the supremacy of Quran over secular law) and reformed Muslims (like Maajid Nawaz) by region.
And same for Christians, how many of them will be hardcore Christian loons, and how many secularized Christians, merely observing religious events like Good Friday and Christmas.
there is no Christian majority in any country since Christians do not agree that those “other” people are really Christians at all.