Few biological forces are more powerful than sexual selection pressure, which is often used to explain everything from peacock feathers to human mid-life crises. What will be particularly interesting to see will be the second-generation effects of the boomers' sexual "liberation" as STDs run rampant through their kids, many of which can lead to sterility, either through biological damage or simple unattractiveness. So now we have the Roe effect putting pressure on leftist morality, and STDs effectively wiping out a generation of lascivious youth. Even if they don't die from their diseases, if they can't or won't reproduce then they're effectively dead biologically... except we're talking about memes here, so even the "dead" can spread their fatal philosophies on to others for a while.
The biggest cultural advantage of Christian morality -- aside from being spiritually right -- is that it gives its hosts tremendous reproductive strength and children that are likely to pass on the meme. Competing leftist ideals lead to death.
I think that 50% number is a little low, mainly because HPV is so ridiculously common. Herpes is pretty common too, and both are commonly asymptomatic. And they aren't going to make you sterile, or even normally less atractive to partners. Everyone isn't getting Chlaymidia and Gonorrhea and Syphilis and not getting treated, sorry. Well, except for christians who aren't quiiiite strong enough, and don't use protection because it is "wrong". This will have basically 0 effect on these memes getting passed on. Nice try though!
Just a little more info, not the best article but here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3846687.stm
While this study is on abstinence only pledges, the basic information is:
People who don't pledge, 99% have sex before marriage
People who do pledge, 88% have sex before marriage
People who do pledge, much less likely to use any kind of protection.
So who do you think is more likely to get an STD there?
Mike, you're forgetting that you don't get STD's from having unprotected sex; you get them from having unprotected sex with people who've had unprotected sex with others. In other words, the previously-abstinent who has sex is more likely to be having sex with someone who has been faithful/chaste than with some more random person who has been "around the block".
I won't discount that out of hand, mr hermit sir, but I will say I have little reason to believe that just because someone has been faithful/chaste is only going to sleep with someone else who has been faithful/chaste (pre marriage). I mean, who do you think is getting these people to break their abstinence vow, only others who took the vow? I don't see why you would assume that, it seems just as likely they're being "corrupted", as opposed to two people just breaking down at the same time.
I assume only that it is more likely that people who break their abstinence vows are dating others who share their values, and people who do not make abstinence vows also date people who share their values. I base my assumption primarily on my personal experience.
Also, I'm curious what makes you think that people who believe in abstinence have to be seduced by someone who doesn't believe in it. What is it, some sort of vampire thing? You are abstinent until "bitten"? Good Christians (and others) have sex too, you know-- often with (gasp) each other!
And it's Ms. Hermit, thanks.
Just a little follow up for the hermit - the original study in the article I posted concluded that the abstinence pledgers were just as likely to get STDs. I'll link another article at the end here which talks about another study which may explain why this is so; It seems they are more likely to try other things that aren't (to them) "sex", and to do those things without any protection.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7232643/
I will say this study just deals with absitence only pledges, which I don't necessarily believe would would be indicitive of religious populations at large. But you can't just say off hand that people's religious beliefs will keep them from having sex/getting STDs, or that being abstinent a little longer is better for prevention than actually knowing how to use a condom and using it.
Just a little point about experimental design in the social sciences: a study that fail to finds a difference between two groups is far less meaningful than a study that finds a difference. The flaws that contaminate studies usually introduce extra variability, which destroys distinctions. So it's easy to do a bad study that fails to find a difference that really exists. It's much harder to do a bad study that finds a difference that doesn't really exist.
Mike: HPV causes genital warts, which probably aren't that attractive. HPV has also been linked to various kinds of cancers, which can be unattractive, can lead to sterility, and can kill you.
Plus, a meme doesn't have to be much more effective to have a huge advantage. If 99% of people have sex before marriage, but a meme can reduce that to 88%, that's a huge difference. Many fewer kids out of wedlock, etc.
I find it ironic and satisfying that homosexuals are less likely to procreate, folks who have abortions obviously are not contributing to the population, liberals and those who don't believe in God are prone to have none or few children, those who get STD's reduce their chances of procreating. In other words, there is hope that the righteous will produce a large crop, and the unrighteous will be dropping in population.
Also, Mike, I'll take a chance that you wouldn't mind my pointing to my blog here, as the same folks who are commenting on this might like to comment on the Porn stuff I've been posting. ideaplace.blogspot.com
RK: This may come as an unpleasant surprise for you, but homosexuals have been around for a long time... and will continue to be. Are homosexuals (myself included) an aberration? Maybe.. maybe not. In any case, aberration or not, we're here to stay.
Unlike you, I don't hope and long for the natural and gradual demise of my ideological opponents. I do not have the pervasive pretentiousness which says that my ideology and my theology have a monopoly on truth and what is ultimately good for one and all.. possession of which might lead me to believe, as you do, that liberals, homosexuals, and people who don't adhere to your interpretation of God have nothing true and good to contribute to our nation and our world and whose absence would be welcome.
There are many religious liberals who don't have abortions. There are many religious homosexuals, not all of which are "liberal". What of their future do you hope for?
Also, RK...
There's nothing to suggest that liberals, homosexuals, and people who don't believe in God are exclusively the product of procreation between liberals, homosexuals, or people who don't believe in God.
I like the assumption that people who have abortions never have children. Wouldn't they just have them later?
As for the meme reducing sexual activity from 99% to 88%, I agree thats pretty powerful. Of course, the same meme reduced contraception use by 33%.
Ben is of course right about experimental design, but here the experiment did find significant differences in sexual behavior, in terms of numbers and contraception. We have yet to find a study that indicates the religious or abstinence pledging youth have a lower rate of STDs, so far as I know.
And as for HPV, it is ridiculously common, and very often asymptomatic. It doesn't tend to cause sterility unless someone is repeately infected or does not get treated. It also happens to be spread through skin to skin contact, so you can have, say, warts on your hand and spread it through a handshake (at least, with some variants of the virus). Due to the repeated-infection clause you may assume that the promiscuous, liberal heathens would be more at risk, and maybe so. But anecdotally, there are plenty of cases of wives being repeatedly infected by their husbands due to their inability to share the information with their infected spouse.