Population in the Honorverse?

So, fly, the best way to keep up your population is to keep the Women barefoot, pregnant, uneducated, and locked-in to the Church?

Sounds great--for today's Afghanistan and ISIS and MWW's Masada.

Maybe not so great for any society that values all citizens free-will.

Not saying you're wrong, btw, in regards to the numbers (albeit I haven't done enough homework to say if you're right or wrong), just making the obvious (at least to me) extrapolation from your comments.

We shall see.

namelessfly wrote:There is an extremely strong, inverse correlation between literacy and birth rates. The correlation is so profound that women who have too many children are presumed to be uneducated and stupid. As evidence I offer the liberal hostility towards Representative Michelle Bachmann and Governor Sarah Palin.

I do not know if there is such a correlation; I wouldn't mind seeing some references. But I suggest that the evidence you put forward is incorrect. I seriously doubt that most liberals have any idea how many children those two women have. Most liberals don't even care a whit about their personal lives. And I don't know a single liberal who thinks that Bachmann or Palin are uneducated or stupid. It is their policies that liberals have a disagreement with. I ask that you withdraw that evidence and put forward some other objective evidence.

Regarding population:

Most religious structures dedicate quite a bit of their teaching, dogma, to children and the raising thereof. Peoples without this structure, be it "partial" Christians(rarely go to Church/mass etc), less devout Muslims, Confucians, etc etc will not have this added influence.

"More religious" people(However you wish to define this nebulous "bin"), be they Christian, Muslim, Confuscian, etc tend to place more relevancy, priority, to raising the next generation instead of being as focused on their own lives because of these influences. Its not as if less religious people do not think about the next generation and their needs, but there is not an outside the family influence/pressure besides the normal societal ones.

Now add societal influences, China's one child policy, wars, lack of resources, abundance of resources, tax structure, which may be partially influenced by religion or not as the case by case may be, and one obtains the societal whole influence on population growth.

Advanced Education and paying for this education via work in the workplace influences population growth via the delaying of childbearing age and therefore decreases birth rate irregardless of religion. Now if you wish to state that some religious structures place less emphasis on being a "bread winner", go for it. Of course you also have to look at the corollary influences that a part time working mother, or full time home mother in the home creates in the viability of the children raised and their stability. There are umpteen million studies done on this subject. Search at your own leisure. Bottom line: For the most productive children, two parents(male/female) is best be they both working or not. Breaking it down past this, well, let you do the reading. The worst are the orphans, or those who are foster children, with over 25% falling back on welfare, jail, etc. That 25% is being kind IMO and are those who really need our help because another large percentage do not go to college and then later in life are on the fringes of welfare etc.

Hutch wrote:Not saying you're wrong, btw, in regards to the numbers (albeit I haven't done enough homework to say if you're right or wrong), just making the obvious (at least to me) extrapolation from your comments.

We shall see.

Maybe if you had, you would see that your previous ad hominen attack comments, I deleted when replying, are clearly not indicated by Namelessfly.

Try a very simple 1 minute geometric population calculation. If you cannot be bothered by such simple trivial mathematics placing the discussion upthread into context well, I have a quote for you:

"A man who cannot reason is a fool, a man who will not reason is a bigot, and a man who dare not reason is a slave.
~ ~ ~ William Drummond "

Hi Relax,

Which William Drummond?

The poet of Hawthornden?

Can you provide any further details of where and when he said or wrote it?

Thanks in advance.

L

Relax wrote:

Hutch wrote:Not saying you're wrong, btw, in regards to the numbers (albeit I haven't done enough homework to say if you're right or wrong), just making the obvious (at least to me) extrapolation from your comments.

We shall see.

Maybe if you had, you would see that your previous ad hominen attack comments, I deleted when replying, are clearly not indicated by Namelessfly.

Try a very simple 1 minute geometric population calculation. If you cannot be bothered by such simple trivial mathematics placing the discussion upthread into context well, I have a quote for you:

"A man who cannot reason is a fool, a man who will not reason is a bigot, and a man who dare not reason is a slave.
~ ~ ~ William Drummond "

SWM wrote:

namelessfly wrote:There is an extremely strong, inverse correlation between literacy and birth rates. The correlation is so profound that women who have too many children are presumed to be uneducated and stupid. As evidence I offer the liberal hostility towards Representative Michelle Bachmann and Governor Sarah Palin.

I do not know if there is such a correlation; I wouldn't mind seeing some references. But I suggest that the evidence you put forward is incorrect. I seriously doubt that most liberals have any idea how many children those two women have. Most liberals don't even care a whit about their personal lives. And I don't know a single liberal who thinks that Bachmann or Palin are uneducated or stupid. It is their policies that liberals have a disagreement with. I ask that you withdraw that evidence and put forward some other objective evidence.

I suggest that you begin by perusing this data and may be doing a scatter plot.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/correlation ... 1=31&v2=39


As for liberal attitudes towards Bachmann and Palin, you must not have been paying attention during the 2008 election. Just google "Trig Palin" and correlate with political blogs such as Democratic Underground.

Obviously you were too busy being offended to actually comprehend.

My point was that higher literacy generally correlates with lower fertility. See these charts here:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ ... -education

However; this correlation is weaker when women are religious. The type of Technologically advanced societies that Weber describes are generally going to have high literacy rates and more education for women as well as men. This suggests that they will have below replacement fertility which correlates with negative population growth. The exception is religious women whose faith seems to motivate them to have above replacement level fertility when they are well educated. I offer this reference here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/

You might also want to read HOW CIVILIZATIONS DIE.

I offered Bachmann and Palin as an examples because they are educated, accomplished women who also have far more children than is average.

Hutch wrote:So, fly, the best way to keep up your population is to keep the Women barefoot, pregnant, uneducated, and locked-in to the Church?

Sounds great--for today's Afghanistan and ISIS and MWW's Masada.

Maybe not so great for any society that values all citizens free-will.

Not saying you're wrong, btw, in regards to the numbers (albeit I haven't done enough homework to say if you're right or wrong), just making the obvious (at least to me) extrapolation from your comments.

We shall see.