2.9 vs 2.6 children per woman. Muslims and Christians, world wide.
2.9/2.6 = 1.1153846153846154.
Pose fertility rate of 2.0 for non-Muslims of a country having 95 % non-Muslim population. Let's pick France.
This would mean 2.0 * 1.1153846153846154 = 2.2307692307692308 for the 5 % Muslim one.
How long would it take for Muslims to grow from 4 % (as they once were) to 8 % or 8.8 %?
Avec environ cinq millions de fidèles français, l'islam est considéré comme la deuxième religion de France, derrière le christianisme. Ainsi, sur un total de 67,1 millions de Français, les musulmans représentent 8 % de la population hexagonale, une proportion parfois largement surestimée par l'opinion publique.https://fr.statista.com/themes/6482/l-islam-en-france/
Le Pew Research Center estimait en 2017 que les musulmans étaient 5,7 millions en 2016 en France, soit 8,8 % de la ...https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_en_France
This would involve (mathematically) "converting children per woman" to "population growth per year". France had 2 children per woman some time between 1975 and 1980. Back then the yearly growth rate was 0.45 %.
So, let's make a rule of three:
2.0 : 1.0045 = 2.23 : x
2x : 1.0045 = 2.23
x : 1.0045 = 2.23 / 2
x = 2.23 * 1.0045 / 2 = 1.1200175
12 % yearly growth rate per year?
1.0045 : 2 = x : 2.23
2.23 * 1.0045 : 2 = x = 1.1200175
Yep. Or should I perhaps count the increase only instead?
0.0045 : 2 = x : 2.23
2.23 * 0.0045 : 2 = x = 0.0050175
Ah, this looks better!
Suppose (not checking stats) in 1977 France had had 4 % Muslims. Would birthrates have given them 8.8 % by now?
2022 - 1977 = 45 years. This is what 1.00045 should be raised to the power of. We'll start from a population right between those of 1975 and 1980, and make the hypothetical 4 % Muslims (I don't know how many the Muslims really were back then) into an actual number of inhabitants:
(53,868,009 + 52,688,576) / 2 = 53,278,293 hypothetic population mid 1977
53,278,293 * 0.04 = 2,131,132 hypothetic number of Muslims back then
53,278,293 - 2,131,132 = 51,147,161 hypothetic number of non-Muslims back then
Now we'll insert the 0.45 and 0.5 % annual population growth into each part of the population.
Non-Muslims: 51,147,161 * 1.0045^45 = 62,599,214
Muslims: 2,131,132 * 1.0050175^45 = 2,669,460
62,599,214 + 2,669,460 = 65,268,674
2,669,460 / 65,268,674 = 0.0408995592587035
Ah, no. In 45 years this would only make the Muslims go from hypthetical 4 to hypthetical and counterfactual 4.1 % and not to 8.8 %! But perhaps in 100 years?
Non-Muslims: 51147161 * 1.0045^100 = 80,133,782
Muslims: 2,131,132 * 1.0050175^100 = 3,515,384
3,515,384 + 80,133,782 = 83,649,166
3,515,384 / 83,649,166 = 0.0420253323266845
No, even in 100 years, the discrepancy in birthrates would have them grow from only 4 to 4.2 % of the projected population.
So, why are Muslims up in 8.8 % in France now?
Well, for one thing, non-Muslim women do NOT give birth to 2.0 children each, but less. The growth of Muslim part of the population is not due to THEIR birthrates, but to OURS, namely us having too low such.
And there is the immigration too. Extra-European immigrants being often North African or Subsaharan African, and the former usually, the latter often Muslim.
But there are conversions. If you are in the street, if you have (with certain people, like shrinks) a reputation of being an alcoholic, getting totally sober either by Alcoholics Anonymous or by converting to Islam or to Evangelicals may be your one option to get a decent life. I have eschewed it, and I still have not a decent life* - despite working fairly hard as a writer.** People with less persistence in virtue could have apostasised to Islam or some "Non-Denominational" Congregation and even to the even more antichristian Alcoholics Anonymous.
So, Muslims, Evangelicals, Alcoholics Anonymous*** are on the rise, and actually real Catholics have sinking numbers. My recipe is not complaining about Muslims being fertile, or about Muslims believing their religion, even if it is not the true one. My recipe is Catholics getting back to being fertile and getting back to believing our religion, which is the true one. Blocking new arrivals or expelling ill behaved old arrivals from the Muslim world would be an optional extra for us, and I'm not into pushing that one. But harrassing Muslims who reside here and who will continue to reside here and who will continue to have a legal right to be Muslims over their fertility or over their religiosity is so counterproductive. This is partly what France would have been doing by youth related social and mental health services as well as schools, all the time from 2005 after suburb rising to 2015, with the terror attack.°
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II Lord's Day after Easter
1.V.2022
* Case in point : Aggressé, avant-hier matin · Après l'attaque - j'ai eu des problèmes de virilité
** 28.III - 4.IV.2022, 22 articles in 8 days. 2.75 per day. Despite an attack on my luggage, leaving me in too much cold. 21 - 28.IIII.2022, 14 posts, of which one share, so 13 articles, in 8 days. The hit on the head has slowed me down, and that may be what some wanted.
*** I obviously count Catholic members of AA as Apostates. Anyone that tells you "you are the art work" is an evil man, and they are into remaking people. Very few exceptions, and a monastery works better when one is young, has not been an option for me since 2000, and frankly wasn't my most eagerly desired one before that either.
° On my blog En français sur Antimodernism I had saved some 50 messages in French from from my up to February 2009 MSN Group Antimodernism and some of these were related to not harrassing suburb residents administrationally just because they were the population involved in the 2005 risings. As you can see, the blog is being targetted for definitive suppression.
No comments:
Post a Comment