perjantaina, syyskuuta 05, 2008

A well-known Finnish leftist blogger wrote a post on Sarah Palin's family fiasco stating that it served as a good example of how hypocritical and lowbrow the Christian right in the USA was. The blogger wrote how the said hypocrisy was nowhere as obvious than in the high teen pregrancy rate among that demographic. That is, of course, all true.

I wrote a comment on the post where I said that American evangelicals were the only signifigantly large group of first worlders maintaining replacement level (or above) fertility, implying that a certain minimum level of knuckle-dragging primitivity and downright irrationality is required of a population to maintain its numbers. That comment was deleted, of course.

I know that fertility rates are plummeting all over the world and not just in the developed world. But it's a rock solid fact that there is nothing that more certainly kills reproduction than an enlightened, rational, post-religious, urban, individualistic, hedonistic, and liberal culture, except for communism.

Demography is destiny. Either the primitives outbreed everyone and come to rule the world (=bad) or everyone becomes civilized which eventually leads to the extinction of mankind. It seems that life extension in particular and transhumanism in general would be the only ways out.

7 kommenttia:

2:37 ip. , Blogger Matti kirjoitti...

Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.

 
11:13 ap. , Blogger Timo kirjoitti...

Deleted? Did you you write your comment in a fashion which could have made it appear offensive to some?

 
4:26 ip. , Blogger Timo kirjoitti...

The fundamentalist "primitives" may have a reproduction advantage over the civilised, but the latter still have a "memetic" advantage over the former and thus, to my mind, the upper hand. What I want to point out is that the fundamentalists' offspring are still more likely to adopt liberal values than the other way down, in a liberal society at least. We have seen reproduction strategies change quite quickly in terms of successive generations. Being reactionary means sticking to relatively crude forms of resistance (what the heck is "viivytystaistelu" in English), which, I believe, cannot constitute a viable alternative to liberal lifestyles in a scientifically anvanced post-industrial society.

Furthermore, I'm positive there are no irrational, fanatic or primitivist genes that could take over the world in the foreseeable future as a result of the reproduction bias – as they have probably done it many times already and we all must possess them in abundance.

 
10:45 ip. , Blogger Markku kirjoitti...

Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.

 
10:51 ip. , Blogger Markku kirjoitti...

Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.

 
3:15 ip. , Blogger Timo kirjoitti...

Thanks! The term is different from the Finnish one in a very interesting way (viivytystaistelu = lit. "delay fight", "delay battle").

Anyhow, the fear of hostile primitives destined to outbreed us – I just can't figure out how that particular position could in any way represent, promote or restore healthy cultural and social self-confidence amidst the turmoils of the day.

Even compared to that, I think the fears of extinction are out of proportion: generations to come have all the time in the world to develop solutions (including the ones you mentioned) to the problem of low reproduction rate once the global population has safely reached its peak and civilization has prevailed.

 
5:44 ip. , Blogger T. kirjoitti...

I can't believe a simple comment like that got deleted. Typical that lefties, who pride themselves as being extra-tolerant, as usual can't actually tolerate any opinion they disagree with.

 

Lähetä kommentti

Tilaa Lähetä kommentteja [Atom]

<< Etusivu