= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
yters comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (653)
A... let's say, close friend of mine, has extremists among her immediate family. They are poor, because any accumulated surplus is flushed down the religion-hole, and live in filth because they sincerely believe that the cockroaches will kneel and obey, or stop existing, if only their delusions could be sufficiently purified. They have produced several offspring, but no loyal heirs, no descendants.
Look at these people, and then tell me with a straight face that they'll rule the world someday.
The question, if you ask me, is not how to deal with that demographic, or the demagogues who exploit them, but how to prevent some spilled coffee from staining the countertop. Metaphorically speaking.
Religion is rapidly on the rise around the world. See Algeria and France for an example of what happens to a secularized society when resisting religious extremists.
So, if an extremist is both stronger and reproduces better than a non-extremist, I'm pretty sure the extremist will win.
Hmmm. My impression is that religion is on the rise in some places, and declining in other places. And that a generation from now, it is likely that religion will be in decline where it is rising now, and on the rise where it now declines.
Two excellent examples supporting my fluctuation viewpoint. Two hundred twenty years ago in France, the 'extremists' were the secularists. Algeria's first post-revolutionary government was ultra-secularist, a la Ataturk. Of course that led to a religious reaction.
Raw reproduction rate is relatively unimportant in cultural evolution. You need to not only reproduce, but reproduce "in kind". Rapidly reproducing subcultures tend to have high attrition rates. Orthodox Jews tend to become secular rather than the reverse. Amish children leave the farm and the faith. It is starting to happen to the Hutterites too. And it is definitely happening to Muslim immigrant populations in Europe.
In fact, the universality of this phenomenon is almost spooky. Maybe it is a side-effect of large family sizes. Kids can't wait to grow up and try out something totally different. By a simple evolutionary psychology argument, we might expect this to be a universal human characteristic.
PS. I realize this comment is long on assertion, but short on documentation. But then, so was yours. If we continue the conversation, we should both try to do better. :)
(blink) Religion is a more powerful force in today's world than, say, five hundred years ago? Secularism has lost ground relative to then? Really?
That's a surprising claim; I'd like to see it backed up with an argument.
Conversely, if you aren't claiming that, I'd recommend thinking about why it isn't true, as it suggests that theorizing that religion will always win out over secularism is missing something critical.
Reproduces better, sure, but stronger in what sense?