Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Red Pill

Why colonizing Mars is a waste of time

Humanity’s problems are not problems of technology they are behavioral.

Avatar

Published

on

In recent times well known figures such as Elon Musk (of Spacex) and the late Prof. Stephen Hawking have made highly publicised comments about space exploration and the necessity for humanity to colonise other planets (such as Mars) in order to ensure human survival in the future.

While such luminaries may well be right in suggesting that humanity is more than able to bring about its own destruction, I do not believe that attempting to populate other environments is the solution to the problem of human survival. Apart from the great challenges that face those attempting such a feat, the fundamental problems of human behaviour are still likely to apply in any locations additional to our own planet.

Before looking at humanity’s innate problems and our struggle to overcome them, let us consider the immensity of any attempt to colonize the Moon or a nearby planet such as Mars. The Moon is much closer to Earth than Mars (240,000 miles as opposed to at least 35 million miles) so it would obviously be easier to try a settlement closer to home first.

Despite its relatively convenient location, the Moon offers much greater challenges than Mars in many respects. For starters the gravity on the Moon is only about 17% of that on Earth, whereas on Mars it’s not far off 40% of that on Earth. The effects of long-term exposure to low gravity are quite serious with loss of bone mass (like osteoporosis), muscle wasting, deterioration of liver function and possible damage to eyesight. So far, the longest anyone has spent in space is 438 days, so it is hard to gauge the negative effects of spending several years or decades in a low gravity situation. Long-term existence in low gravity would undoubtedly make returning to Earth difficult or even impossible and there might also be implications for life expectancy for continual living in a low gravity environment.

Temperature is a significant problem for any would-be colonists, particularly on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. Daytime periods, which last for approximately half of the 28 day lunar cycle, can see surface temperatures of over 120 Celsius. For the other half of the cycle the surface is plunged into darkness and temperatures of around -150 Celsius. Obviously prolonged periods of extreme cold (and darkness) or extreme heat would make creating a stable environment for humans very difficult. Assuming that it could be done, one would still need to provide an environment that is suitable for growing food – with no water, no atmosphere and extended periods of cold and darkness it does not look very feasible.

The situation on Mars does not look quite so bleak, despite the fact that it would currently take at least 150 days to get there. In the Martian summer temperatures at the equator can reach an encouraging 20 Celsius, although generally temperatures only make it above freezing for a very short portion of the year (of 687 days). At night temperatures can plummet to -100 Celsius, even in summer, due to the thinness of the atmosphere. Mercifully the nights are similar in duration to those on Earth as the Martian day is marginally more than on earth and the axis tilt is only 2 degrees higher. Although this is a lot more inviting than the Moon, average temperature is around -55 Celsius and daytime temperatures rarely creep above the freezing point of water.

All this makes creating a human environment difficult, especially given that the Martian year is nearly twice as long as here on Earth and combined with its off-centre elliptical orbit, severely low temperatures outside of summer can be very long lasting. If it’s going to be difficult to keep warm for humans, that could be a more dramatic problem for plant life which we would need to cultivate to feed us. Plants need exposure to sunlight in order to stay alive and so would need to be grown in some kind of greenhouse type structure in order to allow heat and light to reach them. This would not be so great at night unless some form of effective insulation could be provided to stop the contents of the ‘greenhouse’ from freezing.

For any long-term situation on Mars it would be essential for humans to be able to grow their own food. The atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide on Mars which is fine for plants but deadly for humans. Unfortunately, like us, plants need oxygen (albeit a tiny amount), which is sadly lacking on Mars. Apart from the surface being too cold for plants the air pressure is about 100 times lower than on earth, what affect that would have is unknown. Assuming there are no pathogens in the air, external carbon dioxide could be brought into the closed environment but oxygen would need to be brought from earth or extracted from the frozen polar ice. If this could be done and similar air pressure to earth created, in time it should be possible for plants to create a stable ecosystem that provides sufficient oxygen for a human colony although many hundreds of plants or huge amounts of algae would be needed to provide for just one person.

Initially oxygen would have to be brought to the colony or obtained from water by splitting the oxygen from hydrogen and this would not be easy as water is known to exist at the frozen poles.

Growing plants for food and oxygen would be essential for any colony however it’s not going to be simple. Plants would need light but they would also need to be protected from harmful rays (by filters) that penetrate the thin Martian atmosphere. Plants need a growing medium, usually soil, and nutrients but both are rather lacking on Mars. There is no organic soil on Mars, it’s more like sand and although many of the right minerals do exist there, the proportions are tiny compared to what is typical on Earth – artificial fertilizers would be needed.

The soil on Mars is so thin and dry that a huge amount of it ends up as dust in the atmosphere. With rapid temperature changes a great deal of wind is generated, with maximum speeds of around 60mph. Dust storms would be a major problem to overcome on Mars as, on occasion, they engulf almost the whole planet and can last for weeks or even months at a time. High levels of dust in the atmosphere decrease light and heat penetration, just like a volcanic eruption can on Earth. On Earth such incidents are usually localized and short-lived. Severe eruptions in our past caused crop failure and famines on Earth; imagine how a dust storm of months on Mars could impact solar energy production and the photosynthesis of plants.

One particularly important component for survival, that I have barely mentioned yet, is water. The Moon has no water, but there is some present on Mars – in tiny amounts in the atmosphere and as ice at the poles. It would not be possible to transport sufficient water to another planet to provide for a colony so it would need to be separated from any frozen carbon dioxide at the poles and brought to the colony and melted. In the nineteenth century, before refrigeration was invented, huge blocks of ice were transported mostly by ship from northerly regions and sold where-ever people could afford to buy it. So, in theory, ice could be transported from polar regions on Mars to a colony (presumably near the warmer equator) but the logistics of long-distance transportation on a planet with no breathable atmosphere and severe dust storms would not be easy to overcome.

All that I have mentioned so far are just the basic problems of establishing even a tiny community on another world. Assuming that all of the huge problems of creating a workable environment could be overcome we have made no allowance for the inevitable complexities of human existence. Apart from the input of energy of the sun, we live in essentially a closed system that can provide everything that humanity needs to live. We do not need to find, bring or manufacture air, soil, water, plant and animal life in order to survive as it is already here.

Despite having the good fortune to exist on a planet that can provide perfectly for our needs humanity has had and continues to have great difficulty in living in a sustainable way. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to over-consume resources, damage life-sustaining parts of the environment (water, air, soil, other species) and also compete violently with each other and other life forms. In the past we have found that the easiest solution to our problems was to move somewhere else that had not been fully exploited. A small number of isolated communities do continue to live in a sustainable way, but they are under threat from the proliferation of destructive modern living patterns.

Until fairly recently the world seemed like a huge place, inexhaustible and indestructible. However, with a world population of close to 8 billion people and increasing demand for finite resources we are all becoming aware of the dire impact humanity is having on our planet. Of course, the possibility of our destruction is one of the main justifications for attempting to colonize somewhere else.

If we had another Earth to migrate to, it might seem justifiable to move there and start again, although it would not necessarily change the way that we behave – in fact the sudden lack of need to change our ways might ensure that it would not happen. The fact is that we do not have another Earth and trying to create a long-term livable environment somewhere else could prove to be impossible.

Even if it were possible to create a colony on Mars in the decades to come, how many people could it sustain? Without a constant influx of resources to expand a colony of say 100 people, a tiny speck of humanity would be sustainable. The scale of creating a Martian colony of a million people (which is a tiny fraction of humanity) is so daunting that it really is in the realms of science-fiction. Even if such a colony were possible, how would we overcome the continued human tendencies of over-populating, degrading our environment and fighting amongst ourselves? Such behaviour is dangerous for humanity and the world here on Earth, one can only imagine how dangerous it would be for a community in a highly restricted and vulnerable alien environment.

Despite all of the damage that we have done to the planet, which we are only beginning to understand now, we still live on a beautiful and habitable world. Running away to another planet is not going solve the problems of humanity as our fundamental problem is not of technology or resources but of our behaviour. If we insist on trying to colonize Mars or anywhere else we are liable to run into the same problems, created by our behaviour patterns, including our chronic problem of military conflict that shows no sign of ending.

While we are learning that we need to change and learning new and better ways of doing things we still have a very long way to go. What knowledge, energy and resources we have should be concentrated on solving the problems of living here, on this planet that is ideally suited to us. The thought of being stuck here if we do manage to fatally damage Earth is rather terrifying, but perhaps a lack of other viable options might be what saves us. Scientific exploration and expansion of our understanding of the universe is a benefit to humanity, but it should not be used to offer false hope to a species that could be faced with self annihilation. With the possibility of escaping to somewhere else removed we are left with only one realistic option – finding a way out of the mess we have created.

The huge amount of money, time, energy and physical resources that is allocated for or currently being used for space exploration and colonization would be better expended on dealing with the plethora of problems that exist on Earth. We do not yet have the technology to make colonizing Mars or other places a reality, but we do have the technology to fix our problems here on Earth.

The know-how for producing renewable energy has been around for decades and the technology has improved with more and better techniques coming on line in recent years. Nuclear energy is dangerous, potentially explosive and produces huge amounts of radioactive waste – a problem that could haunt us for centuries. This is just one problem that humanity has failed to address properly and is long overdue being solved for the good of future generations. The technology for solving this and much of the pollution problems, including plastic waste, already exists but is very expensive at the moment.

Much of the world’s problems such as environmental degradation, over population and poor resource distribution, economic and physical warfare can be changed simply by changing how we think and do things and don’t necessarily need advanced technology – just the will to do it and allocation of resources. Humanity’s problems are not problems of technology they are behavioral and that is down to our failure to mature as a species. While we continue to put conflict, greed, self-interest and short-term goals above cooperation, consideration and the long-term future of all life, running away to another planet is not going to save us.

You can read more of Luke’s work at lukeeastwood.com.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Frankenstein Designer Kids: What You Don’t Know About Gender-Transitioning Will Blow Your Mind

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Puberty-blocking drugs, mastectomies, vaginal surgery and fake penises – all with zero chance of reversal – these are just some of the radical experimental methods being used on children. The madness must stop.

Imagine that you are the parent of a five-year-old boy who innocently informs you one day that he is a girl. Of course, the natural reaction would be to laugh, not phone up the nearest gender transitioning clinic. You have no idea how your little boy came to believe such a thing; possibly it was through something he heard at the daycare center, or maybe a program he saw on television. In any case, he insists that he ‘identifies’ as a female.

Eventually, possibly at the encouragement of your local school, you pay a visit to a physician. You hope this medical professional will be able to provide you and your child with some sound counseling to clear up his confusion. Prepare yourself to be disappointed. Your doctor will be forced, according to state and medical dictate, to follow the professional guidelines known as ‘affirmative care.’ It sounds nice and harmless, doesn’t it? In fact, the program could be best described as nothing short of diabolical.

The Medical Harms of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children

Following the ‘affirmative care’ approach, the doctor is required to follow the child’s lead, not vice-versa, as many people believe the doctor-patient relationship in this particular case would best work. In other words, if the child tells the doctor that he believes he is a girl, the doctor must comply with that ‘reality’ no matter what biology tells him or her to be the case. But this is just the beginning of the madness.

As the child’s parent, you will be encouraged to start referring to your son as your ‘daughter,’ and even permit him to choose a feminine name, as well as matching clothes. Teachers will be instructed to let your son use the girl’s bathroom while at school. The question of the social stigma attached to such a lifestyle change, complete with bullying, is rarely brought into the equation. Therapists will seldom discuss with the parents the social implications of such a mental and physical change; indeed, many will insist the changes are ‘reversible’ should the child one day have a change of heart. If only things were that easy.

Let’s pause for a moment and ask what should be the most obvious question, especially among medical professionals: ‘Is it not terribly naive to support the fleeting belief of a child, who still believes in Santa Claus, that he/she is the opposite sex? Isn’t there a very high possibility that the child is just confused and the thought will pass? Moreover, why did we never hear about such episodes just 10 years ago, yet today we are led to believe it is some sort of epidemic?’ Instead of working with the child and his newfound identity from such an obvious approach, in the majority of cases the child will be placed on the fast-track to gender transitioning. This is where the horror story begins.

One parent, ‘Elaine,’ a member of the advocacy group Kelsey Coalition whose daughter underwent “life-altering medical interventions,” came to understand that the transition is immensely harmful to the future health and well-being of her child.

“Once the teenage years begin, affirmative care means giving young people cross-sex hormones,” Elaine said during a panel discussion organized by the Heritage Foundation. “Girls as young as twelve are prescribed testosterone for lifetime usage, while boys are given estrogen. These are serious hormonal treatments that impact brain development, cardiovascular health and may increase the risk of cancer.”

This leads us to the operating table, where adolescents, lacking the mental maturity necessary to make such a huge life-altering choice, are exposed to the knife of irreversible surgical manipulation. Double mastectomies on girls, for example, as well as the fashioning of false penises derived from flesh borrowed from other parts of the body, are just some of the unprecedented procedures now available.

Elaine mentioned the high-profile story of one Jazz Jennings, who was diagnosed with ‘gender dysphoria’ and raised as a girl since the age of five. He was treated with hormones at the age of eleven, and at the age of 17, Jazz underwent surgery to remove his penis and create a simulated vagina out of his stomach lining.

“After surgery, Jazz’s wounds began separating and a blood blister began to form. An emergency surgery was performed. According to Jazz’s doctor, ‘As I was getting her on the bed, I heard something go ‘pop.’ When I looked, the whole thing has split open.’”

Elaine called the case of Jazz a “medical experiment on a child” that “has been playing out on television for the past 12 years.” It should be noted that a similar drama-packed scenario captivated the nation with the high-profile, made-for-television sexual transition of Caitlyn Jenner, born Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic gold medalist, who was quite possibly the greatest American athlete of all time.

The obvious question is ‘how many impressionable children, many experiencing their own bodily changes in the form of puberty, were persuaded to decide in favor of gender transitioning (something that a child could have only heard about from some external media or source, unless the parents engage in such odd discussion topics at the dinner table) after watching these celebrity persona?’ By now, few people would doubt the powerful influence that TV celebrities have over people, and especially adolescents. In fact, that is the entire notion behind the idea of a ‘positive role model.’ I am not sure Caitlin Jenner would qualify for such a part.

According to Michael Laidlaw, M.D., these children, who are experiencing what the medical community has dubbed ‘gender dysphoria,’ will move beyond their condition either naturally or with the assistance of a therapist. Meanwhile, according to Laidlaw, citing studies, many of the girls and boys who display symptoms have neuro-psychiatric conditions and autism. “Social media and YouTube, things like that, binge-watching YouTube videos of transitioners seem to be playing a role…as well as contagion” in popularizing the idea among the masses.

The movement is predicated upon the modern liberal idea of ‘gender identity,’ which has been defined as a “person’s core internal sense of their own gender,” regardless as to what the biological facts of their sex prove.

Dr. Laidlaw presented perhaps the best case against parents and their children rushing to the conclusion that their children need puberty blockers, for example, or extreme doses of hormones, when he discussed what happens when a person is diagnosed with cancer.

“If a child or somebody you knew had cancer, would you want pathology results, would you want imaging to prove [the condition] before you give harmful chemotherapeutics,” he asked. Yet we are allowing children and adolescents to undergo irreversible chemical and surgical procedures without being able to see any evidence that shows the presence of ‘the opposite sex’ in the patient.

In other words, the medical community is monkey-wrenching with not only Mother Nature, but with the lives of children, with radical and irreversible experiments that have not been proven to promote the happiness and wellbeing of those on the receiving (or subtracting) end.

“We are giving very harmful therapies on the basis of no objective diagnosis,” Dr. Laidlaw said.

Laidlaw was forced to repeat what has been widely known for millennia.

“There are only two sexes,” he said. “Sex is identified at birth, nobody assigns it. Doctors don’t arbitrarily assign this person to be a boy and this person to be a girl. We all know how to identify it.

“I would say ‘ask your grandmother who doesn’t read the scientific journals, and they will tell you exactly how to identify boys from girls.’”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Candace Owens calls out lying Democrat narrative machine [Video]

Candace Owens was the latest near-casualty in the Democrat liberal globalists’ attempt to increase anger and division in the US.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

In a Congressional hearing led by House Democrats, Candace Owens represented the Republican party’s viewpoints in a conference that was supposed to be about “hate crimes” and their perpetration through Internet social media outlets. She was treated with a despicable level of disgust.

It would actually be very difficult for anyone but the most prejudiced liberal Democrat to not see the blatant use of out of context remarks and spin to try to destroy a person for political gain.

A well known conservative commentator, Candace Owens got a clip played of her own statement about nationalism by Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA), which she supports. She made a statement about how the perception of “nationalist” leaders is commonly held to be people like Adolf Hitler, but that this in fact is not true. Here is the exact text of what she said:

I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word “nationalism”. I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. … Whenever we say “nationalism”, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.[59]

Where the Democrats went with this was astounding in its reach into both fiction and insanity. The allegation did not address in any regard what Ms. Owens actually said, but rather, the “concern” over her saying the name “Adolf Hitler” and also that “if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great… fine.”

For the next four minutes Candace sat quietly as the Democrats used this foil to prattle on their narrative about the “hatefulness of conservatives” and underlined indirectly Owens’ alleged prejudice. But finally, Ms Owens got a chance to speak. And speak, she did:

Here is the video. It is instructive to watch the whole thing, but if you want only Candace’s response, go to [05:29] to see and hear what she has to say.

The body of what Ms Owens said in response to this farce is here below (we added emphasis and edited a mistaken phrase that Ms Owens corrected as she spoke – she was very angry as she fiercely defended herself and called the Democrats to account):

“I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety. He purposely presented an extract, an extracted clip…”

Here, Rep. Jerry Nadler interrupted, trying to correct Ms Owens for calling Rep. Lieu stupid, which she actually did not, as one can see in the text.

“As I said, he is assuming that black people will not go pursue the full two-hour clip. And he purposefully extracted; he cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was asked of me was pertaining to whether … or not I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad…

And what I responded to, is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist. He was a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people. A nationalist would not kill their own people. That is exactly what I was referring to in the clip and he purposely wanted to give you a cut-up, similar to what they do to Donald Trump, to create a different narrative. That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it, which is worrisome, and and to tell you a lot about where people are today in terms of people trying to drum up narratives.

By the way, I would like to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the Embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure that I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”

Ms. Owens was not finished. Fox News reported further:

Turning to her 75-year old grandfather seated behind her, Owens remarked, “My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’ held real meaning.”

Though Owens stood up for truth, a deeper problem still exists

The hearing in which this took place was one in which executives from Facebook and Google answer lawmakers’ questions about the companies’ spread of “hate crimes” and the mythical issue of “white nationalism” in the United States.

This “white nationalism” is a total farce and only exists in the minds of woke liberals and Democrats. Further, there is nothing illegal about what has popularly come to be called “hate speech”, though of course as Christians we are taught not to speak hatefully about anyone, even our enemies.

Of course, since Christianity is rejected in the US, with more and more people saying they do not believe in the traditionally held concept of God, and an increasing number of outright atheists, who deliberately believe there is no such thing as God. Concurrent with this breakdown is the inability for people to handle themselves, and a corresponding increase in unrestrained rage over social media and even face to face.

The mainstream media will not report this, but we will. One of the biggest factors in this madness is the use of social media as a “blasting point” from which anyone can say anything, no matter how vile, to anyone else or to everyone else. Even religious discussion groups, such as Facebook’s various groups on Orthodox Christianity (the oldest and purest Christian confession on earth) swiftly devolve into accusations, name calling and enough invective to turn any inquirer into Christianity completely off.

As a matter of fact, the live streaming of this Congressional hearing had to have its comments disabled, and Representative Nadler showed a copy of the transcribed comments to the people in the meeting and read it, perhaps blissfully unaware of how his own dishonesty added to it.

This is a problem. While it is refreshing to many people that Candace Owens stuck up for herself and did so with strength and self-restraint at the same time, the circus antics do reveal exactly what she talked about and further how serious it is.

It is unclear how far this goes. Google and YouTube and Facebook are probably not themselves to blame for the breakdown, but their services are certainly highly employable by people who are energized with self-righteous rage in any direction, and all of that is helping separate us all from one another.

It should be noted that Russia did not have to do one single thing to cause this. This is totally Made In USA.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Number Of Americans With “No Religion” Has Soared 266% Over The Last 3 Decades

There is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog:


Over the last 30 years, there has been a mass exodus out of organized religion in the United States.  Each year the needle has only moved a little bit, but over the long-term what we have witnessed has been nothing short of a seismic shift.  Never before in American history have we seen such dramatic movement away from the Christian faith, and this has enormous implications for the future of our nation.  According to a survey that was just released, the percentage of Americans that claim to have “no religion” has increased by 266 percent since 1991…

The number of Americans who identify as having no religion has risen 266 percent since 1991, to now tie statistically with the number of Catholics and Evangelicals, according to a new survey.

People with no religion – known as ‘nones’ among statisticians – account for 23.1 percent of the U.S. population, while Catholics make up 23 percent and Evangelicals account for 22.5 percent, according to the General Social Survey.

In other words, the “nones” are now officially the largest religious group in the United States.

At one time it would have been extremely difficult to imagine that one day the “nones” would someday surpass evangelical Christians, but it has actually happened.

And the biggest movement that we have seen has been among our young people.  According to a different survey, two-thirds of Christian young adults say that they stopped going to church at some point between the ages of 18 and 22

Large numbers of young adults who frequently attended Protestant worship services in high school are dropping out of church.

Two-thirds of young people say they stopped regularly going to church for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22, a new LifeWay Research surveyshows.

These are the exact same patterns that we saw happen in Europe, and now most of those countries are considered to be “post-Christian societies”.

The young adults of today are going to be the leaders of tomorrow, and they have a much higher percentage of “nones” than the population as a whole.  According to a study that was conducted a while back by PRRI, 39 percent of our young adults are “religiously unaffiliated” at this point…

Today, nearly four in ten (39%) young adults (ages 18-29) are religiously unaffiliated—three times the unaffiliated rate (13%) among seniors (ages 65 and older). While previous generations were also more likely to be religiously unaffiliated in their twenties, young adults today are nearly four times as likely as young adults a generation ago to identify as religiously unaffiliated. In 1986, for example, only 10% of young adults claimed no religious affiliation.

To go from 10 percent during Ronald Reagan’s second term to 39 percent today is an absolutely colossal shift.

Right now, only about 27 percent of U.S. Millennials attend church on a regular basis.  Most of them simply have no interest in being heavily involved in organized religion.

And even the young people that are involved in church do not seem very keen on sharing their faith with others.  According to one of the most shocking surveys that I have seen in a long time, 47 percent of Millennials that consider themselves to be “practicing Christians” believe that it is “wrong” to share the gospel with others

A new study from the California-based firm Barna Group, which compiles data on Christian trends in American culture, has revealed a staggering number of American millennials think evangelism is wrong.

The report, commissioned by the discipleship group Alpha USA, showed a whopping 47 percent of millennials — born between 1984 and 1998 — “agree at least somewhat that it is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith.”

These numbers are hard to believe, but they are from some of the most respected pollsters in the entire country.

Politically, these trends indicate that America is likely to continue to move to the left.  Those that have no religious affiliation are much, much more likely to be Democrats, and so this exodus away from organized religion is tremendous news for the Democratic Party.

In a previous article, I documented the fact that somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 churches in the United States are dying each year.

That means that more than 100 will die this week.

And thousands more are teetering on the brink.  In fact, most churches in America have less than 100 people attending each Sunday

A majority of churches have fewer than 100 people attending services each Sunday and have declined or nearly flatlined in membership growth, according to a new study from Exponential by LifeWay Research.

The study, which was conducted to help churches better understand growth in the pews, showed that most Protestant churches are not doing well attracting new Christian converts, reporting an average of less than one each month.

But even among all the bad news, there are some promising signs for the Christian faith.  The home church movement if flourishing all over the country, and many of those home fellowships are focused on getting back to the roots of the Christian faith.  All throughout history there have been relentless attempts to destroy the Christian faith, and yet it is still the largest faith in the entire world.

However, there is no doubt that Christianity is in decline throughout the western world, and churches are dying one after another.

This is what one pastor had to say about the slow death of his church

‘My church is on the decline,’ he said. ‘We had 50 (congregants) in 2005 and now we have 15. We’re probably going to have to close (in a few years).’

‘Mainline Christianity is dying,’ he added. ‘It’s at least going away. It makes me feel more comfortable that it’s not my fault or my church’s fault. It’s part of a bigger trend that’s happening.’

John Adams, the second president of the United States, once said the following about our form of government…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

As America has turned away from the Christian faith, we have become steadily less moral and steadily less religious.

If we continue down this path, many believe that the future of our nation is going to be quite bleak indeed.


About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared NowThe Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dreamand The Most Important News.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending