Human Extinction Caused by Religious

[Thoreau]

I have no doubt in my mind that socially conservative Christians will unknowingly bring about the end of our species.

Think about it.

1) They are against stem cell research. When a conservative Christian gets in power, they push to ban stem cell research, thus banning all medical benefits that may arisen from it. They would rather let millions of people suffer and die from diseases, spinal cord injuries, burns, and a thousand other conditions than to retrieve stem cells from an already aborted or miscarriaged fetus. See Newt Gingrich's recent vow of support to ban SCR on already dead babies. ALL of this because their God somehow told them so, despite the multitude of passages of infanticide in the Bible.

2) Conservative Christians are against abortion and contraception. I'm not sure if they have a clue as to the human exponential growth factor we're dealing with, but we're heading toward a breaking point. Food and other resources are becoming less abundant. We have food and water shortages constantly throughout our planet. And they want us to reproduce even more!?!? Eventually (sooner rather than later) we're going to overrun this planet to such an extent that we will starve ourselves to death. Also, not to mention how many people will suffer and die due to diseases that become more and more common with higher population numbers. Some experts claim that by 2050 there will be so many humans on Earth that we only will have only 9 square feet of land for each person. Of course, it won't get to that point because we will starve ourselves first. This is a prime example of what will happen.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

Also, take a look at this... http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

3) Conservative Christians typically love war. Over the past 40 years, 89 American soldiers died in wars/conflicts that were started by a Democratic President whereas over 7,400 have died in wars started by religiously conservative Republican presidents. In fact, we have a presidential candidate right now (Rick Santorum) who stated that he would do a full-scale force beddown invasion of Iran. Imagine the death toll that would bring.

If the next total war doesn't wipe out our population numbers, starvation and disease will.

I honestly think we don't have much longer as a species. I'd give it another 200-300 years at the very most. What do you think?

 

[lightgigantic]

I have no doubt in my mind that socially conservative Christians will unknowingly bring about the end of our species.

Think about it.

1) They are against stem cell research. When a conservative Christian gets in power, they push to ban stem cell research, thus banning all medical benefits that may arisen from it. They would rather let millions of people suffer and die from diseases, spinal cord injuries, burns, and a thousand other conditions than to retrieve stem cells from an already aborted or miscarriaged fetus. See Newt Gingrich's recent vow of support to ban SCR on already dead babies. ALL of this because their God somehow told them so, despite the multitude of passages of infanticide in the Bible.

I don't think the scale for this is as epic as you depict. IOW I don't think the medical programs of the world are really decked out to implement stem cell programs when most are strapped for providing bare medical facilities.

2) Conservative Christians are against abortion and contraception. I'm not sure if they have a clue as to the human exponential growth factor we're dealing with, but we're heading toward a breaking point. Food and other resources are becoming less abundant. We have food and water shortages constantly throughout our planet. And they want us to reproduce even more!?!? Eventually (sooner rather than later) we're going to overrun this planet to such an extent that we will starve ourselves to death. Also, not to mention how many people will suffer and die due to diseases that become more and more common with higher population numbers. Some experts claim that by 2050 there will be so many humans on Earth that we only will have only 9 square feet of land for each person. Of course, it won't get to that point because we will starve ourselves first. This is a prime example of what will happen.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

So on one hand you think saving more lives will stop extinction and previously you said not saving lives will cause extinction?

I think you have to make up your mind whether you think the planet is in the grips of a resource/population crisis or not.

3) Conservative Christians typically love war. Over the past 40 years, 89 American soldiers died in wars/conflicts that were started by a Democratic President whereas over 7,400 have died in wars started by religiously conservative Republican presidents. In fact, we have a presidential candidate right now (Rick Santorum) who stated that he would do a full-scale force beddown invasion of Iran. Imagine the death toll that would bring.

I don't think the problem is so simple since much of the middle east is simply the after math of cold war politics

If the next total war doesn't wipe out our population numbers, starvation and disease will.

I honestly think we don't have much longer as a species. I'd give it another 200-300 years at the very most. What do you think?

I think we will last longer.

Industrial society OTOH has probably got a lifespan of 200-300 years max

 

[spidergoat]

I agree, apocalyptic beliefs combined with nuclear weapons could very well mean the end of our species.

 

[Thoreau]

So on one hand you think saving more lives will stop extinction and previously you said not saving lives will cause extinction?

I think you have to make up your mind whether you think the planet is in the grips of a resource/population crisis or not.

No. That was not the case I was proposing. I was suggesting lower reproduction rates while promoting medical advancements for those alive.

Just because we should put restrictions on birth rates, that doesn't mean we have to hinder medical progress for the world of the living.

Less lives with better quality of life is what I'm saying we need, to be clear.

 

[Thoreau]

I don't think the problem is so simple since much of the middle east is simply the after math of cold war politics


I think we will last longer.

Industrial society OTOH has probably got a lifespan of 200-300 years max

Considering that Christianity is now the world's largest religion and evangelism is on the rise, I don't think, with their ideologies, that we hold much promise as a species. The Middle East has always had their issues. That's nothing new. If it's not one thing, it's another. And theologically, they haven't changed in over 2000 years. Christianity, on the other hand, has.... drastically. Unlike their Muslim counterparts, Christians have become more and more involved in politics and more willing and able act counterproductively to the necessities of humans as a species. What we DON'T need is more people. We're already beginning to devastate the planet. They want more people. This can be seen in the average childbirth rates of the religion compared to the non-religious as well as their worldwide attempts to ban abortions, contraceptions and other forms of birth control.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Considering that Christianity is now the world's largest religion

Even though it might be the largest religion all the others make it only a third of the total. So the others control more people and more wealth as well.

They are against stem cell research.

It's not the research that they are against, it's the practice of using human fetuses as the source of the stem cell material. Doing this has too high a potential for abuse, such as creating a black market for fetuses, and financially promoting abortions in order to harvest the unborn for their stem cells.

Conservative Christians typically love war. Over the past 40 years, 89 American soldiers died in wars/conflicts that were started by a Democratic President whereas over 7,400 have died in wars started by religiously conservative Republican presidents

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the US President through World War 2 until he died in office in 1945.

FDR was in Power from 1933-1945. The U.S. Entered the war in 1941

Conservative Christians are against abortion and contraception.

The vast majority of Protesant denominations, theologians, and churches at least permit contraception and may even promote family planning as an important moral good.


All FACTS from WIKI

 

[lightgigantic]

Considering that Christianity is now the world's largest religion and evangelism is on the rise, I don't think, with their ideologies, that we hold much promise as a species. The Middle East has always had their issues. That's nothing new. If it's not one thing, it's another. And theologically, they haven't changed in over 2000 years. Christianity, on the other hand, has.... drastically. Unlike their Muslim counterparts, Christians have become more and more involved in politics and more willing and able act counterproductively to the necessities of humans as a species. What we DON'T need is more people. We're already beginning to devastate the planet. They want more people. This can be seen in the average childbirth rates of the religion compared to the non-religious as well as their worldwide attempts to ban abortions, contraceptions and other forms of birth control.

Any ideology that operates out of an industrial economy will have problems about devastating the planet. Religion really doesn't have much to do with it.

China as an example springs to mind ...

 

[wynn]

Considering that Christianity is now the world's largest religion and evangelism is on the rise, I don't think, with their ideologies, that we hold much promise as a species.

Given the trends in modern Christianity, it is apparently becoming a secular population, not a religious one.


It's because of secularism that we don't hold much promise as a species.

 

[Thoreau]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the US President through World War 2 until he died in office in 1945.

FDR was in Power from 1933-1945. The U.S. Entered the war in 1941[/QUOTE]

2012 - "40 years" = 1972

:p

 

[Thoreau]

Given the trends in modern Christianity, it is apparently becoming a secular population, not a religious one.


It's because of secularism that we don't hold much promise as a species.

Any supporting evidence to go with your erroneous claim?

 

[cosmictraveler]

2012 - "40 years" = 1972

So if you would use 70 years instead of 40 years you'd have had the Korean War, second world war and Vietnam , all started by DEMOCRATS. Those wars combined killed over 1 million American GI's but I see that you just happen to leave that out of your statement, why is that? :shrug:

 

[Thoreau]

So if you would use 70 years instead of 40 years you'd have had the Korean War, second world war and Vietnam , all started by DEMOCRATS. Those wars combined killed over 1 million American GI's but I see that you just happen to leave that out of your statement, why is that? :shrug:

Because I'm talking about the changes in religion and politics over the past 40 years.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Given the trends in modern Christianity, it is apparently becoming a secular population, not a religious one.

Can you direct me to a study?

It's because of secularism that we don't hold much promise as a species.

How's that?

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you direct me to a study?




How's that?

this is a good book on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Age

 

[spidergoat]

Given the trends in modern Christianity, it is apparently becoming a secular population, not a religious one.


It's because of secularism that we don't hold much promise as a species.

You mean secular and religious, but not theocratic, there's a difference.

Secularism is what made the US the special place it is. No other country to that point had separated church and state in their constitution.

 

[michael_taylor]

I don't think you could say "caused", but "helped along", sure.

Religious people are widely known to partially lose the capacity for sensible thought as they become more religious. And it's not like humans are particularly sensible to start off with.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I don't think the scale for this is as epic as you depict. IOW I don't think the medical programs of the world are really decked out to implement stem cell programs when most are strapped for providing bare medical facilities.

Very true, even if SCR tech was available, it probably wouldn't be economically feasible.

So on one hand you think saving more lives will stop extinction and previously you said not saving lives will cause extinction?

I think you have to make up your mind whether you think the planet is in the grips of a resource/population crisis or not.

I noticed this too. He wants to save everyone's life, but then says we're going to overpopulate. If we allow stem cell research, heal a bunch of people, then starve ourselves, what does that have to do with religion?

Ironically, I am now fully convinced that a good war or plague is just what we need. Thank you, MZ3boy, for convincing me to oppose SCR and promote war.

I don't think the problem is so simple since much of the middle east is simply the after math of cold war politics.

Plus, that's not a very fair stat. After all, how many presidents over the last 40 years were democrat, compared to republican? That's like saying, 100% of democratic presidents over the last 40 years have tried to restructure the healthcare system, as opposed to 0% of republicans. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

So if you would use 70 years instead of 40 years you'd have had the Korean War, second world war and Vietnam , all started by DEMOCRATS. Those wars combined killed over 1 million American GI's but I see that you just happen to leave that out of your statement, why is that? :shrug:

Democrats also fought hard to preserve and expand African slavery in the colonies and were largely responsible for the civil war.

 

[wynn]

You mean secular and religious, but not theocratic, there's a difference.

Secularism is what made the US the special place it is. No other country to that point had separated church and state in their constitution.

The economic situation of the US truly is special, yes.

 

[Yazata]

I have no doubt in my mind that socially conservative Christians will unknowingly bring about the end of our species.

It's interesting how you're basically repeating Christianity's "end-times" fantasy, while trying to turn it on its head.

1) They are against stem cell research.

More accurately, SOME (not all) socially-conservative Christians in the United States are against American tax-payer funding of FETAL stem cell research, not stem cell research in general. That political opposition has never prevented large scale funding of fetal stem cell work by many private foundations. Even in the hypothetical and unlikely event that the US abandoned stem-cell research entirely, that would just mean that research leadership would shift to laboratories in Europe and elsewhere.

While I think that fetal stem cell research has promise and I believe that American government research funding should help support it, I don't think that the survival of the human race is in any way dependent on whether that happens or not.

2) Conservative Christians are against abortion and contraception. I'm not sure if they have a clue as to the human exponential growth factor we're dealing with, but we're heading toward a breaking point.

In the developed world, population growth has almost ceased. A number of European countries along with Japan have aging populations and look to see population declines in coming decades. In the United States, it's only immigration that keeps the population slowly growing.

Growth in the world population is largely in non-Western countries, particularly the poorer ones. I agree with you that's going to be a major problem in coming years, but I don't see conservative Christians in places like the United States as having a big role in it, one way or the other.

3) Conservative Christians typically love war. Over the past 40 years, 89 American soldiers died in wars/conflicts that were started by a Democratic President whereas over 7,400 have died in wars started by religiously conservative Republican presidents.

If you had gone back longer than 40 years, you would have hit the Vietnam war, which was mostly Kennedy's and Johnson's work. And World War II, the giant of American wars, came during Roosevelt's presidency. I'm not criticising Roosevelt for entering WWII, he had little choice in the matter. Nor am I really criticizing Kennedy or Johnson either. I'm just criticizing your rather foolish assertion.

I do think that the chances of war are going to rise in the future. But that's largely because of the rise of China and India in a world that's starting to face resource depletion, leading to increased competition for raw materials. I see a return of a 19'th-century style "great game", where powers move pieces across the world like it's a chess-board in order to lock up sources of supplies.

And continued proliferation of nuclear weapons into less stable hands is going to be the real wild-card, raising the odds that a regional nuclear war is going to break out somewhere in coming decades. The Middle East is my first guess. Or perhaps India-Pakistan. That will cost millions of lives, but it won't exterminate the human race. And Christian conservatives aren't going to be the most likely instigators, if it comes.