General Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

[The Helper]

In the past 20 years, the Amish population in the US has doubled, increasing from 123,000 in 1991 to 249,000 in 2010. The huge growth stems almost entirely from the religious culture’s high fertility rate, which is about 6 children per woman, on average. At this rate, the Amish population will reach 7 million by 2100 and 44 million by 2150. On the other hand, the growth may not continue if future generations of Amish choose to defect from the religion and if secular influences reduce the birth rate. In a new study, Robert Rowthorn, emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge University, has looked at the broader picture underlying this particular example: how will the high fertility rates of religious people throughout the world affect the future of human genetic evolution, and therefore the biological makeup of society?

Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently “hitchhiking” on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. Even if some of the people who are born to religious parents defect from religion and become secular, the religious genes they carry (which encompass other personality traits, such as obedience and conservativism) will still spread throughout society, according to the model’s numerical simulations.

“Provided the fertility of religious people remains on average higher than that of secular people, the genes that predispose people towards religion will spread,” Rowthorn told PhysOrg.com. “The bigger the fertility differential between religious and secular people, the faster this genetic transformation will occur. This does not mean that everyone will become religious. Genes are not destiny. Many people who are genetically predisposed towards religion may in fact lead secular lives because of the cultural influences they have been exposed to.”

Model predicts 'religiosity gene' will dominate society

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the past 20 years, the Amish population in the US has doubled, increasing from 123,000 in 1991 to 249,000 in 2010. The huge growth stems almost entirely from the religious culture’s high fertility rate, which is about 6 children per woman, on average. At this rate, the Amish...

phys.org

 

[FireCat]

That's Just bullshit!

 

[Slapshot136]

That's Just bullshit!

what (specifically) is?

 

[MasterOfRa]

That would only be true in the case that predisposition religion is genetic(so to speak), and the selective breeding can actually cause more people who have a predisposition to religion. At this time, We dont know if genes determine that or not.

 

[Slapshot136]

That would only be true in the case that predisposition religion is genetic(so to speak), and the selective breeding can actually cause more people who have a predisposition to religion. At this time, We dont know if genes determine that or not.

I think you have a point, and I would say that recently as opposed to say 100 or 1000 years ago the amount of non-religious people is actually much higher, so what caused that? -> the environment/nature (or science/tech, your choice), so this dosen't have much influence over people

 

[13lade619]

It's not religion that is genetic but the capacity to be religious.
(which encompass other personality traits, such as obedience and conservativism)

 

[JerseyFoo]

Wow. This theory fails to take into account the atheist virus which is spreading very rapidly.

 

[Ninja_sheep]

Wow. This theory fails to take into account the atheist virus which is spreading very rapidly.

Actually, it does

“The rate at which religious people abandon their faith affects the eventual share of the population who are religious,” Rowthorn said. “However, it does not alter the conclusion of the article that the religiosity allele will eventually take over. If the defection rate is high, there will be lots of children who are brought up as religious and carry the religiosity allele, but who give up their faith. Such people will carry the religiosity allele into the secular population with them. Many of their descendents will also carry this allele and be secular. In this case, the high fertility group is constantly sending migrants into the low-fertility secular population. Such migrations will simultaneously boost the size of the secular population and transform its genetic composition.”

But it still seems stupid to make predictions 140 years into the future. Even if they're just implied.

 

[phyrex1an]

That would only be true in the case that predisposition religion is genetic(so to speak), and the selective breeding can actually cause more people who have a predisposition to religion. At this time, We dont know if genes determine that or not.

This is from the abstract of the paper:

Religious people nowadays have more children on average than their secular counterparts. This paper uses a simple model to explore the evolutionary implications of this difference. It assumes that fertility is determined entirely by culture, whereas subjective predisposition towards religion is influenced by genetic endowment.

They make a pretty wild assumption and then see what conclusions they can draw from that. To me it seems like they just wanted to play with the awesome modeling tools that mathematicans and computer scientists have developed for the practicing scientists

 

[The Helper]

That software definitely should find its way into a game

 

[sqrage]

I think you have a point, and I would say that recently as opposed to say 100 or 1000 years ago the amount of non-religious people is actually much higher, so what caused that? -> the environment/nature (or science/tech, your choice), so this dosen't have much influence over people

But the number of religious people is growing at a much faster rate than secular people now. Unfortunately, secular people like myself have no plans on having children whereas religious people have tons of them.

But it's things like this that makes me want to knock up as many girls as I can.

And I know for a fact that perhaps 95% of the world believes there is something besides their physical body, or a spirit, which exists.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

They make a pretty wild assumption and then see what conclusions they can draw from that. To me it seems like they just wanted to play with the awesome modeling tools that mathematicans and computer scientists have developed for the practicing scientists

seems stupid to make predictions 140 years into the future.

Troll scientists are trolling, please wait warmly.

Honestly, I'd sooner assume that fertility is genetic, and predisposition towards religion is determined entirely by culture. How does one prove what's genetic and what's not, anyway..?

 

[sqrage]

Troll scientists are trolling, please wait warmly.

Honestly, I'd sooner assume that fertility is genetic, and predisposition towards religion is determined entirely by culture. How does one prove what's genetic and what's not, anyway..?

Do you agree schizophrenia has genetic involvement? Same thing. You most likely wont get schizophrenia even if you have genes that make you more susceptible to it, but with the "right" environmental influences it will be triggered. Others can go through the same environmental stimulus and not get the disorder.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

I'd sooner assume that fertility is genetic, and predisposition towards religion is determined entirely by culture.

Do you agree schizophrenia has genetic involvement? Same thing. You most likely wont get schizophrenia even if you have genes that make you more susceptible to it, but with the "right" environmental influences it will be triggered.

I can't figure out if this agrees that fertility is more likely to be genetic than religiosity or disagrees.

How does one prove what's genetic and what's not, anyway..?

Others can go through the same environmental stimulus and not get the disorder.

I can't figure out if this is evidence for something being genetic, or not.

>Do you agree schizophrenia has genetic involvement?
My last statement implies that I have no clue how to decide either way. Damn, I need breakfast. My mental capacity is hopeless, right now.

 

[sqrage]

I'm saying everything, even religious preference probably has genetic components as well as envionrmental. I wouldn't say either is completely one or another.

There are probably studies done about religiousness vs. secularness on identical twins that should be able to estimate heredity.

 

[FireCat]

what (specifically) is?

Religious belief is a personal choice or forced. There isn't any genetic component to religious belief.

 

[sqrage]

Religious belief is a personal choice or forced. There isn't any genetic component to religious belief.

You clearly don't know how the brain works.

 

[FireCat]

You clearly don't know how the brain works.

Seriously, No one today fully knows. Well, so long as it works! hehehe
Anyway, predicts such a thing It's kinda nuts! and claim it's a genetic thing. hmm

 

[Narks]

Seriously, No one today fully knows.

Religious belief is a personal choice or forced. There isn't any genetic component to religious belief.

the ivory

 

[Slapshot136]

Religious belief is a personal choice or forced. There isn't any genetic component to religious belief.

wait, what?

"it's either a choice or forced" - isn't that always the case for everything?

and surely you aren't suggesting that there is no difference between choosing to do/believe in something and being forced to, -> genetics have a huge role in people like vs what they don't like (no, people don't like having stuff forced upon them) -> there is a genetic component