You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on [POLITICS] Jihadism and a new kind of existential threat - Less Wrong Discussion

-5 Post author: MrMind 25 March 2015 09:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 March 2015 08:13:11PM *  2 points [-]

In the long run, won't genes win out?

So, a couple of hundred years ago the West was 95%+ religious. Not so much now. Why is that and why genes are not winning out? And why are there so many irreligious Chinese?

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 25 March 2015 08:33:18PM 0 points [-]

Well, firstly I think the correlation between religion and fertility is probably a lot more relevant after the invention of medicine, sanitation and contraceptives. A couple of hundred years ago a lot of people didn't survive to adulthood. Certain religious groups such as Mormons have massively increased in proportion over the last hundred years.

As for the Chinese, over short time periods memes win over genes, and Mao stamped down on religion. Does Confusianism/Taoism/Buddism have any sort of similar teaching about being fruitful? Are these even religions in the same sense, or are they legal codes, an early attempt at science and a philosophy respectively?