If secular societies are so great then how come they're

>>1795723
>Czech Republic (one of most secular atheistic countries there is)
>Better birthrates than all of /V4/, including the most christian EU country

Religion seems like irrelevant factor.

>Posts a fertility map to prove secular socities have low birthrates.
>Only Germany is a secular nation with low births, the other low-birth nations have a strong religious element in their society.

FAIL

>>1795723
France is extremely secular and it has a high birthrate

File: image.jpg (106KB, 630x574px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 630x574px

>>1795743

Wonder why...

>>1795733
>>1795739

>below replacement level

Go back to your bananas

>>1795723
>>1795750
The most religious and/or economically-backwards states in Europe are the ones with the lowest birth rates, with the only notable exception being Germany. What are you smoking?

>>1795723
because capitalism

File: birthrate.png (22KB, 641x590px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 641x590px

>>1795733
>>1795739
>>1795743

>>1795792
So there is neglieble difference in Europe?

Also it calculates it by affiliations of individuals, not by comparing secularism and fertility of entire societies

>>1795827
> fertility rate difference of 2.1 vs 1.4 is negligible
> not realizing what unaffiliated is
You are not making any sense.

>>1795750
Germany imports frighteningly large numbers of immigrants.

>>1795723
>they're literally dying?

Except the world gets more secular every year.

File: 1472106388507.jpg (18KB, 252x233px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 252x233px

>>1795723
what if first world nations birth rate dropping before their population reaches unsustainable levels is a good thing?

>>1795839
> not realizing what unaffiliated is
atheists?

> fertility rate difference of 2.1 vs 1.4 is negligible
Oh sorry, you´ve meant the small (albeit growing) fraction of people from entirely alien cultures?

>>1795861
Not that guy but 1.6 to 1.4 is still a significant difference though.

>>1795743
>>1795750
The birthrate of france is heightened by african residents, but just by 0.1 or 0.2 points (read that in an official study years ago). Still, 1.8 children per european woman is not a high birthrate in any respect.

>>1795852
Because 3rd world countries have way too big population growth.

>>1795852
Then it would be okay. But what are unsustainable levels ? Europe can produce food and energy for a lot more people than what it has.
And if it could not, then there's a big problem with politicians repeating that we need immigrants to keep the population and economy growing.

>>1795933
>Still, 1.8 children per european woman is not a high birthrate in any respect
Yes but it still makes the birthrate among French women higher than that of native women in any other European country, which doesn't support OP's point given how secular France is

File: Capture.jpg (42KB, 503x343px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 503x343px

>>1795950
He is not so far from the thruth though.

Pic related is the number of children per woman in france, by year of birth (of the woman) and religious pratice.
The dark continous line is the most assiduous church- (or synagogue- or mosque-) goers
The light continuous line is the most assiduous catholics
The dark interrupted line is the less assiduous religious people
The light dotted line is the non-praticing believers
The black line is the non-believers

As we can see, the difference between all these appears for women born in the 50s (so who became adults in the late 60s), increases with time, and is most significant not between the believing and non-believing groups but between the practicing and not-practicing groups.

So secularity, *even among believers*, is indeed an obstacle to child making. Or it's the reverse.

>>1795723
>tfw irish
Feels good man. Also is France doing okay or is that the Algerians increasing the birth rate?

>>1796010

Catholic women have more than two children

My (catholic) doctor has 8 children and and the rare time i went to a Mass i saw 3-4 children per family.

>>1796010
Assumption that religious catholics have more children is still in conflict with data from Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Spain and Portugal.

File: un_population_projections_steve_sailer_2.png (87KB, 1234x852px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1234x852px

21st century will be fun.

>>1796045
There's no conflict, just a problem of scale.

I think you would probably find that, like in france, in each of these countries the people actually practicing their religion have more children than the rest.

The thing is that religious affiliation alone is not the best indicator of religious culture.

I really think that there is a cultural shift in a lot of countries that lead them towards low birthrates. But it is not secularization, at least not directly, because it touches the believers too. And the really religious people's birthrates hold out, not because they are not affected by that shift, but because they care more about the explicit instructions of their religion telling them to have chil...
No, actually,scratch that, it's bullshit. They don't follow instructions, they make kids because they value large families. They are less affected by that shift than the other believers and the non-believers.

>>1796096
>I think you would probably find that, like in france, in each of these countries the people actually practicing their religion have more children than the rest
And where do these religious people live? In urban or rural areas?

>There's no conflict, just a problem of scale
Yup and the scale is what matters, since we are talking about secularization (effect of religion on state). If the scale was set just by secularism the OP's map would look quite different.

Just compare Spain and Portugal with France. What would help Iberians to get their wombs running? More Jesus, better economy? They already have more Jesus than France, so it seems to me they need more than just Church affecting politics.

>>1796154
>And where do these religious people live? In urban or rural areas?
Good point, but that's related. Hard to say if there is a geographical component to secularization or a religious component to urbanization.

>we are talking about secularization (effect of religion on state)
Are we ? A secular society and a secular state are different things.
OP's map is badly chosen for his point, that's a fact.

>What would help Iberians to get their wombs running? More Jesus, better economy?
I don't think a better economy would help much. Usually richer people have less children, and the strongest economies of europe do not have the highest birthrates; and it's also disconnected from economic growth.

Interesting fact : the fertility rates of immigrants differ significantly from that of their home country.
In france, the rates for african immigrants are lower than for africans, (significantly for subsharans, a little for algerians and moroccans, and tunisians are the exception). The rates for european immigrants on the other hand, are a bit higher than that of their home countries : on average 1.6 against 1.4. The exception is portuguese women who make almost 2 kids in france for 1.5 in portugal. (data for 1990-98, a time when the rate for french-born women was 1.7).

>>1796053
And they're all coming here. I guess we just invade southern Africa and set up shop there, or hide in Russia.

>>1796224
>Are we ? A secular society and a secular state are different things.
Secualism most often means separation of Church and state.

>OP's map is badly chosen for his point, that's a fact.
For his maybe, but it's good for mine. That there are more relevant issues for the terrible fertility amongst Europeans than separation of church and public life. I mean look at Poland, they literally have banned interruptions and they are still amongst the worst.

>I don't think a better economy would help much.
You are wrong here, if people had more financial stability, they'll be starting more families. Especially if the state decides to implement pro-family bias in gibsmedats.

>and the strongest economies of europe do not have the highest birthrates
Scandinavia, UK and France seem pretty decent. But people in stronger economies tend to be urbanized and individualist, therefore less kids.

>I don't think a better economy would help much.
Do you have better idea? Seems to me like denbts, crisis and unemployment are the cause of the red colour.

File: Captu2re.jpg (28KB, 477x250px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 477x250px

>>1796349
>>1796349
>if people had more financial stability, they'll be starting more families
Is that an assumption based on common sense ?
I don't think that's strictly true. A couple that wants children won't decide not to because they are poor. Though they will often delay, if the future seems better than the present.

I was searching for statistics about that, and I found some that show that there's a delay for the first child if the mother faces unemployment, but not for the second child.
I didn't find stats for fertility according to income or professional category.

But there's pic related. Apparently, the crisis of 2008 and the economic instability that followed did not impact the european fertility rates.

Also, I took a look at this.
demographic-research.org/volumes/vol34/1/34-1.pdf
They say that unemployment rates are a good predictor of fertility, but from reading their data it doesn't seem so to me. I suspect confirmation bias on their part.
In northern and central italy, we can see a slight inflexion of the fertility curve as unemployment rises, but it's slight. In southern italy, there's no visible relation at all.
In 1995, s.italy had the highest fertility and around twice the unemployment of the north. The fertility went steadily down without a change, as the unemployment rose until 1999, then decreased until 2008 (by 10 points for men and 5 for women), then rose again.


>Do you have better idea? Seems to me like denbts, crisis and unemployment are the cause of the red colour.
I don't have a better idea, I think there's no good solution. Improving welfare for families and a recovering economy might help marginally but it won't change the fact that europeans populations are not replacing themselves, even france.
There is a link between the two, but the bad economic situation is not the cause for low fertility.
The issue is complex, but I am certain that the main cause is cultural.

It's a wealth issue, not a religious issue. The poorer you are, and the more unstable your society, the more kids you'll have.

if the first world is so good how come it's literally dying?

>>1795723
Europe is overpopulated right now.
I'm sorry if the pension ponzi scheme suffers, but we really have too many people per square kilometer for a comfy life.

>>1795792
>not enough Muslims in Latin America for the data
If they fix their corruption problems, Latin American countries could become great places to live for people fleeing the European Caliphate.

If humans are so great, then why do they all eventually die?

checkmate

>>1797281
No, not really.
Muslims can be dealt with, but Brazil tier demographics where half of people are brown are hard to fix.

>>1797300
>wrong skin color is worse than dangerous ideologies
You're retarded.

But even then, Spanish Latin America has fewer black people or black descendants, if that really must be your priority. Then again, mestizos probably trigger you too.

>>1797311
>>wrong skin color is worse than dangerous ideologies
Correct.

>>1797281
>European Caliphate.

Assuming all immigrants are Muslism, with no possibility of some older breed of Christianity, Agnosticism or Atheism; and that the children of currents migrants will be willing to be as prolific as their parents. If they merge with Western culture, then it will Europe-as-usual.

>>1797281

>latin america
>great place to live
>ever

I'd literally rather live in the actual Middle East than some shithole banana republic jointly presided over by drug cartels and authoritarian socialists where the life expectancy is the same figure as the murder rate per 100k

>>1797324
I know that's what you thought, that's why I'm calling you retarded.

>>1797341
>what is Argentina
>what is Chile
>what is Uruguay

And believe it or not, most cunts are actually working out security and anti-corruption programs. It's hard to tell right now, but the region might actually take a turn for the better in a few decades. I've been to a few Mexican cities lately and the economic growth is noticeable.

>>1797364

>what is Argentina
>what is Chile
>what is Uruguay

Hopeless states where corrupt governments are held hostage by corrupt trade unions working in a corrupt and bloated public sector?

>>1797311
I'll believe your fairy tales when you show me a decent negro society with low violent crime.
Until then genes matter (and it's more than just skin color).

>>1797389
That's only true for Argentina as far as I know, and even that is starting to change with the new regime.

>>1797390
First of all, brown people don't necessarily come from mixture with blacks. Mixture with amerindians, tropical climates and jobs done outside will naturally lead to browner people even in countries were blacks were never imported.

Second, you literally said that not having the right skin color is worse than harboring a dangerous ideology. This is completely, and absolutely, retarded. You're backpedaling into "black societies are failures with high violent crime" and "it's not just skin color" right now.

Third, even assuming that you meant genetics in general and not just skin color, and even then assuming that non-white people are indeed more likely at a genetic level to resort to violence, it's still dumb to prioritize skin color over ideology because non-white skin would only "make it more likely that they're more likely to resort to violence", i.e., two degrees of separation; vs. dangerous ideologies making people more likely to be violent regardless of everything else.

And this isn't even taking into account the fact that racism is necessarily a collectivist mentality, but /pol/ has never been one for consistency so I guess it's pointless to bring it up.

>>1795861
There's no need to be so intentionally obtuse. It's okay to admit that you're wrong.

>>1795723
>dude lets fill this balloon with all the air available on earth instead of keeping the air level at a manageable rate

imagine if every country had chinktier pops, how long would the resources last

not to mention that nations with shit cultures/genetics will just waste the resources anyways (china included)

>>1795723
The real problem here is women in the workforce, increased standards of living and the huge monetary cost maintaining a child represents

>>1797721
And abortion, birth control and contraception religion enshrines natality secularism (feminism) bemoans it.

>>1797721
Higher female workforce participation rate tracks with higher TFR since the 1970s, at least within the OCED.

https://www.princeton.edu/~adsera/JPE04.pdf

You can see that easily in the above map at the start of the thread; the northern European countries with high TFR also have high female employment, while the southern European ones with low TFR also have low female employment rates.

>>1796975
>Is that an assumption based on common sense?
And terrible situation that is down there, south.

>Apparently, the crisis of 2008 and the economic instability that followed did not impact the european fertility rates.
Seems to me it did, but there were different effects in different countries. I mean in Greece the shit started in 2010, you can clearly see the fertility goes to toilet from there.

> I suspect confirmation bias on their part.
More likely because statistics generally require a lot of mathematics to make sense, I doubt anyone could be arsed to check all that boring math.

>The issue is complex
Glad we can agree on that. But as you can see in OP's map, terrible economical situation has greater effect than secularization. The worst fertility rates in Europe belong to it's most religious societies.

My conclusion is that we need proper family policies, more gibsmedats for children. Improving European relationship towards bigger families would certainly help, but such changes are much harder to achieve than just move some shekels from roads to mothers. Stuffing more god in society seems like worst option both in terms of ethics and effectiveness.

>>1798036
>as you can see in OP's map
But I can't. Spain, Portugal and Poland are far from being in a terrible situation, compared to other countries in the area, like Greece, Russia or Tunisia. The situation is pretty good in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland and the fertility is bad too.

> I mean in Greece the shit started in 2010, you can clearly see the fertility goes to toilet from there.
It's not that bad, it remains higher than Portugal and Spain despite the economy being worse.
You're right, this is the one country with a clear evolution. But it took an economical catastrophe, not a simple crisis or a chronically bad situation.

My conclusion is that we need big cultural change to get to replacement level. It's impossible to achieve through political will, but nothing else will be sufficient. People, ultimately, do not make kids because they can afford it, but because they want a family.

Aside from that, I dislike religion, and I would have liked it if our societies didn't have to stuff more muslims in to replace the unborn secular youth.

File: Natural_Population_Growth_of_Russia.png (98KB, 675x441px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 675x441px

>>1798123
>But I can't. Spain, Portugal and Poland are far from being in a terrible situation, compared to other countries in the area, like Greece, Russia or Tunisia.
Youth unemployment in Spain is like 1/2. They are in terrible situation. Greeks are in simmiliar situation, but somehow they have different TFR. Ruskies and Tunisians are different cultures and thus uncomparable.

Talking about Russia, again the fertility correlates with economy. In Ukraine there is even worse situation.

>The situation is pretty good in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland and the fertility is bad too.
How come? Apart from Germany they seem decent, definitly better than the most religious European nations.

>You're right, this is the one country with a clear evolution
Spain also

>It's not that bad, it remains higher than Portugal and Spain despite the economy being worse
irrelevant, because different standard.

>But it took an economical catastrophe
Well, the derivation of Greek TFR looks catastrophic

>My conclusion is that we need big cultural change to get to replacement level.
Religion won't help us with that, we need more focus on earthly family.

>People, ultimately, do not make kids because they can afford it, but because they want a family.
Had the religion be a major effect on TFR and this statement was true, there will be shitton of lil' Janeks, Pedros and Alberto Barbarosa's. We only see a lot of lil' Micks.

File: 1458590465023.jpg (175KB, 629x619px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 629x619px

>>1795792
>Latin America and the Caribbean
>* muslims

>>1797390
>>1797389
>>1797341
>>1797324
>>1797300
Damn, i didn't know europeans loved muslims so much

>>1798282
All these countries have different cultures. That's why Greece with bigger issues has a higher fertility than Portugal. Same for Russia and Tunisia.
That's my point.
Economy can have an impact, especially in times of quick and ample changes, but the basic level of fertility is not defined by the wealth of the individuals, but by their culture.

>Apart from Germany they seem decent
Losing 15-20% of your population from one generation to the next is not decent.
It proves that doing well economically won't make a population replace itself.

>Religion won't help us with that
Nothing will. As we've seen, simple religious affiliation doesn't help. But religious practice is correlated with higher fertility.
The reason religion could not help is that it's one aspect of a cultural system with immense inertia. Even if we wanted we couldn't spread it just like that.

Tfw no qt fertile moldavian wife to produce white offspring with

File: Adeptus_mechanicus_by_cribs-d4b4afs.jpg (666KB, 749x1200px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 749x1200px

>>1795949

In 25-50 years we might have strong AI.

Then population growth will be a moot point.

File: 1469064298269.jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>1798448
Stockholm syndrome.

>>1798587
>Losing 15-20% of your population from one generation to the next is not decent.
Relatively decent, compared to other European nations.

>All these countries have different cultures
Yes, so different we can't just say X has better TFR cuz religion.

>But religious practice is correlated with higher fertility
Inside each society maybe. But there is hardly any correlation between lower secularization and higher TFR (talking about Europe). It is more likely family-oriented people correlate with religion.

>Economy can have an impact, especially in times of quick and ample changes, but the basic level of fertility is not defined by the wealth of the individuals, but by their culture.
It's hard and dangerous to engineer culture. It's easy to change spending policy in favour of families.

>Nothing will
Google Denmark fertility policy. There should be three papers about fertility policies improving fertility, I can't post them since (Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-s-bizarre-series-of-sex-campaigns-lead-to-baby-boom-a7062466.html

>>1795949

politicians arent repeating that at all

in fact most of what you hear from politicians all over europe is that the migration crisis is a major problem and we should all close our borders

and thats whats being done, were all closing our borders

next big wave wont even get past greece, only way for them to get into europe now is to try and float up to sicily and hope the italians dont change their minds and start scuttling their boats like greeks used to do

were all sick and fucking tired of this shit, fucking bush junior starts a series of wars back in 2001/2002 for no realistic reason, fucks things up to the point a whole region of the planet is a living hell, obama comes along and actualy arms the fuckers that form isil, everithing goes to shit as much as is humanly possible, and now 15 years later were the ones getting all the fallout

well fuck that shit, its not our wars, its not our problem

the only real problem is fucktards like merkel, but they will soon be voted out of office

see, democracy does have its perks

>>1800692

All this delusion

>>1800905
What about what he said is incorrect?