Debunking Muslim takeovers by birthrate

It is widely said that the high birthrates of Muslim immigrants will eventually give them majority status in Europe.  Not going to happen, according to researchers.  Actually, the Muslim birthrate throughout the world is declining, though not as much right now as with native Europeans.  But the growth of the Islamic population in Europe will be too small to make much of a difference:

Senior researcher Brian Grim said: “Across the next 20 years, we’re only seeing a 2 percent rise in the total share of Europe that is Muslim. We’re projecting that the growth rate is slowing. So this rise is very very modest. It’s a relatively small share of the overall population in Europe… There’s no real scenario that we’ve looked at that this ‘Eurabia’ scenario would come to be.”

Alan Cooperman, associate director for research, said the percentages of Muslims in some European populations would rise from 3 to 5 percent to between 6 and 10 percent by 2030. “Those are substantial increases but they are very far from the ‘Eurabia’ scenario of runaway growth,” he said. “We do not see either wordlwide or in Europe runaway growth. The growth rates are slowing.”

via Will Pew Muslim birth rate study finally silence the “Eurabia” claim? | Analysis & Opinion |.

We’ll be a cell of a greater organism

What some people expect will happen, from a review of another book:

In “Why the West Rules, For Now,” his excellent and amusing survey of the last 70,000 years or so of human history, Ian Morris discusses an event we can look forward to in 2045: the Singularity, “effectively merging carbon-and-silicon based intelligence into a single global consciousness. . . . We will transcend biology, evolving into a new, merged being as far ahead of homo sapiens as a contemporary human is of the individual cells that merge to create his or her body.”

via Sherry Turkle’s meditation on technology, “Alone Together”.

And all of us cells will be united, by, what, Facebook?

This, of course, is basically the premise of Gaia worship, which says that we already are all just cells of the organism Earth.  It also makes a great worldview for totalitarianism.

The union of the human and the machine is a goal transhumanism.  As Timothy Leary was dying of cancer, he dreamed of someday being able to download his consciousness into the internet, giving him everlasting life.  If everybody does that, we could dispense with our bodies altogether and all be one.

Is this the beginning of a new religion?  Does anyone know how seriously people, especially in the tech world, are taking this?  The Singularity.  Coming in 2045.   Put that date on your calendar.

Christianity Today Book Awards

Have you read any of these?  If so, please report.

2011 Christianity Today Book Awards | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

Are there any other books with a Christian theme that you think deserves to belong in a list like this?

A new nation

After years of civil war and genocide, in which the Arab Muslims of the north brutalized the African Christians of the south, a new nation has been born.  In accord with an armistice agreement, the people of southern Sudan voted for secession.  With 99.57% of the vote.

The new country, South Sudan, is set for sovereignty within six months.  It will be one of the poorest nations on earth.  And yet it sits atop vast amounts of oil.  By terms of the agreement, the oil wealth has to be shared with the north, but it needs to be developed first.

This is a country that’s worth pulling for.  And praying for.

It’s official: South Sudan set to secede with a 99.57 percent vote – CSMonitor.com.

Egypt explodes

The Egyptian protests against its authoritarian regime have escalated, to the point of revolution.  Even though President Mubarak has shut off internet access and most cell phone connections, the protesters have succeeded in shutting down the government.  The army was called out, but is apparently taking the side of the people, a key development in a military dictatorship.  The police had been battling the protesters with truncheons, tear gas, and guns.  The death toll is unknown.  But now the police have disappeared.

Instead of freedom, we now see social breakdown.  Looters are plundering everything, as they did in Iraq when Saddam’s regime was overthrown.  A culture that relies on strong external controls to ensure social order can go wild when those external controls are no longer there.  That seems to be happening here.  Are all Islamic countries going to do that, due to being all Law, as opposed to societies influenced by Christianity, which stresses inner transformation through the Gospel?  Meanwhile, in Egypt, the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood is organizing vigilantes to protect people’s property.  That’s an ominous sign.

See Egypt vigilantes defend homes as police disappear | Reuters

And now the Arab revolution seems to have now spread to Jordan!

An op-ed piece in the Washington Post says that the uprisings show that George Bush was right, that people in the Islamic world do crave freedom and democracy. Maybe so. Then again, it didn’t take us invading to bring down these tyrannies. But what kind of freedom are the people getting?

Harm reduction

Idly surfing the internet, I came across the tidbit that a socially conservative party in Australia opposes “harm reduction.” Not being familiar with that is, I dug around and found that it is an entire theory of do-goodism.

Harm reduction (or harm minimisation) refers to a range of public health policies designed to reduce the harmful consequences associated with recreational drug use and other high risk activities. Harm reduction is put forward as a useful perspective alongside the more conventional approaches of demand and supply reduction.

Many advocates argue that prohibitionist laws criminalize people for suffering from a disease and cause harm, for example by obliging drug addicts to obtain drugs of unknown purity from unreliable criminal sources at high prices, increasing the risk of overdose and death. Its critics are concerned that tolerating risky or illegal behaviour sends a message to the community that these behaviours are acceptable.

via Harm reduction – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The idea is, instead of getting people to stop dangerous behaviors, we should make those behaviors less dangers.

This is where we get the thinking behind needle-exchange programs, to prevent heroin addicts from getting AIDS. Some countries, such as England and Switzerland, actually give heroin addicts heroin, so that they won’t steal to support their habit. There is an outfit in this country called DanceSafe that goes to raves and offers free testing of drugs, so that kids can make sure they aren’t ingesting dangerous impurities in their drugs, so that they will have a positive experience with their Ecstasy or crystal meth.

Other examples would be condoms in the schools, free rides for potential drunk drivers, less harmful cigarettes, and the like.

What do you think of this philosophy? Can we draw a line between reducing harm and giving approval to bad behavior? If we take away the harm from bad behavior, does that stop it from being bad?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X