Biggest story of our time: our self-extinction

[trumptman]

Kiss the future goodbye (http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/184544,CST-EDT-steyn24.article)

The author uses Christmas as a backdrop for the discussion and though the holiday has passed the point made has not. Western societies often with the self-presumption of superior values and moral codes cannot defeat that most basic of laws, and that is nature.

We claim to practice multiculturalism, and to hold all cultures in equal regard. Yet that simply isn't true. We take non-Western societies, those that may withhold education from females for example or simply stone homosexuals instead of debating what relationship forms to endorse and we hold them in lower esteem. The rhetoric cannot pass the muster of reality here.

Also those other cultures, they don't have to pretend to practice multiculturalism. They can simply judge what we do within out own cultures with outright disdain. They can even wish to abolish or destroy it.

So we have one culture that attempts to somehow justify paradoxical reasoning that for example, a culture that desires to help you and another that desires to kill you are both the same with one being no better than the other. We have other cultures that attempt no such gimmickry.

Perhaps I'll be fired from ABC, but if we buy for a second that there are indeed cultural aspects that cannot simply be left to subjectivity (who has the best bread, cheese, music) and instead must be dealt with objectively what sort of criteria should we use when determining if a culture good and decent? We don't have to deal with best, but good and decent ought to be something that should be determined.

I say this because many people do, regardless of what they claim consider western culture to be good and decent. Yet it seems that whomever practices it, regardless of their actual ethnicity, ends up committing a form of self-suicide.

How can that be healthy or right?

People talk about the Jewish Holocaust in WWII. By most estimates it killed around seven million people. We can discuss why they died and what sort of descriptions should be attached to the people and their actions who were the cause.

What do we call it though when our current culture will lead to a depopulation of Europe by 50 million people? Do we call that a holocaust? Do we call it genocide? Do we even dare call it a bad idea?

How can we get people to care for each other when they have no experience having a brother, or sister, an aunt or uncle or a cousin due to lack of births? How can they be anything but self-absorbed?

Finally we have that realm of ideals again. On paper we can claim one culture is better. Yet if that culture dies on the vine due to lack of descendants while another prospers, even by using means we might consider primitive of backwards, who really wins in terms of nature or objectively? An ideal in a book can't very well advocate itself. Especially when those who are still alive can deny the right to learn to read, or burn the book printed by those dead and gone.

Thoughts?

Nick

[jamac]

Mankind extinct, life goes on, no one there to care.

[hardeeharhar]

What is this, human extinction or some sort of reverse (and by reverse, I mean forward) Naziism?

Nick, are you asking if we should defend our *culture* or defend humanity?

One has significant legitamacy, the other is always just blowing in the wind....

[trumptman]

Mankind extinct, life goes on, no one there to care.

I never said anything about mankind going extinct. Quite the opposite in fact. Mankind would continue to exist but a Western culture would go extinct. Then again should it survive when those that adopt it go into a mode of self-extinction?

What is this, human extinction or some sort of reverse (and by reverse, I mean forward) Naziism?

Nick, are you asking if we should defend our *culture* or defend humanity?

One has significant legitamacy, the other is always just blowing in the wind....

I'm simply pointing out that when the Nazi's were gassing people, we judged it. We called it bad. Now certain thoughts, ideals and policies will lead to depopulation at rates that make Nazism look tame. It will be on par percentage-wise with the Black Plague.

If I shoot you in the head, or hand you the gun and convince you to put it in your mouth, the result is the same is it not? Is one more or less evil than the other? Would we condemn the former but not even question the latter?

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Who is being killed trumpt?

Murdered?

Or actually committing suicide?

Anyone?

No. You are full of shit.

Edit: 12 million people were killed under the Nazi regime in ~3 years. That is 4 M/year, show me depopulation of any area at that rate above the normal death rate where there isn't systematic murder occurring.

[BRussell]

Is population size everything? It seems to me that as education increases, birth rates decrease. But as education increases, influence and effectiveness (for lack of better terms) also increase. Already, in 2006, the middle east has a larger population than the US. But who has more influence? Africa has something like a billion people. Are they what anyone would call successful?

Besides, immigration is keeping us growing.

[trumptman]

Who is being killed trumpt?

Someone has to be born before you can kill them.

Hardee, if I sterilized the entire black population of the United States, would it be okay because I didn't "kill" them?

Murdered?

Or actually committing suicide?

Anyone?

No. You are full of shit.

You focus on the method instead of the outcome. The reality is that by 2050 or so, Europe, Japan and likely China (thanks to adopting Western Communism) will all be facing demographic population bombs.

Does that mean that these countries will be sitting empty? In the case of Japan, possibly because they are so racist they would prefer robots to immigration. However in Europe it will be quite a different story.

France for example banned head scarves in schools from being worn by Muslim women. They can enforce this for now because they are the majority. What about in another 25-40 years when they are no longer a clear majority?

What happens then? What happens when the new "majority" allows the head scarves to return, and just bans the girls from school instead?

Is population size everything?

Well according to our western thought, not at all... population size isn't anything, it can even be detrimental. Population planning, reproductive control, sexual education are all things we have encouraged and likely all things we can agree are good things.

Yet when viewed from the position of evolution or a more natural state, these things are not good at all. According to that measure, we lose.

It seems to me that as education increases, birth rates decrease.

Agreed.

But as education increases, influence and effectiveness (for lack of better terms) also increase.

Effectiveness/productivity, I'd agree... influence... I think not so much.

Already, in 2006, the middle east has a larger population than the US. But who has more influence?

Well that is the question now isn't it? The U.S. assumed quite a bit more influence than it appears to have, even with spending billions, having all sorts of technology, and a death rate in terms of fighting that is probably the lowest it has ever been for combat.

We are the world's sole superpower, our economy is tops in the world, our war toys are the best and kill the most effectively while protecting us the most from harm.

Yet we still have guys with college degrees willing to kill to end our "influence." Iraq is a paper tiger in terms of combat yet we cannot tame it in terms of country-building. We desire to give Iraq and the Middle East as a whole western Democracy and western values. Some of these folks in these countries speak like we are attempting genocide against them and their peoples if they receive these "gifts." When you look at our own future population numbers, are they lying or telling the truth?

Africa has something like a billion people. Are they what anyone would call successful?

Life isn't a sprint, it is a marathon. If Africa has 1.5 billion in 50 years and we have say .5 billion planet-wide who still adhere to western values, who will be then winner? What about in 100 years if Africa has 2.5 billion and and those who promote western values are 100 million?

Besides, immigration is keeping us growing.

That immigration has a drop out rate of 50%. It is willing to run back to their home country when the work dries up. That immigration doesn't necessarily practice racial tolerance or value women outside of the kitchen.

Growing a population and maintaining a culture are not the same. I've never said that any of these countries would be empty. I've simply said the culture that created them will have killed them and allowed something else to take it's place. We might judge that something else as "bad" in comparison to our current values.

You talk about immigration keeping us growing. The values of our current immigration is seek work first and education second if at all. Husband works and has muy machismo and wife better stay home and take care of children. Dad learns English, wife stays home and speaks only Spanish. Etc.

This leads to a higher birth rate. A birth rate that can compensate for our lack of births. Yet do we honestly think that we can somehow take the people and tell them to leave the values and culture behind? Blue jeans and rock and roll brought down the Soviet Union, but Russia is on track to depopulate faster than most of Europe regardless of the political system.

Can we preach a cultural value knowing that it leads to millions fewer of the people to whom we are trying to give it? If people regard what we treasure, Democracy, individual rights and freedoms as a form of genocide in the variant we have applied them, are they justified in those views?

Nick

[gregmightdothat]

What happens then? What happens when the new "majority" allows the head scarves to return, and just bans the girls from school instead?


They better ban them, or they might start showing up to school with the word "juicy" on their butt.

[hardeeharhar]

Nick,

You are not so tacitly couching this in terms of outsiders versus insiders, which is complete bullshit. Humans are not at risk of going extinct, yet. Our world wide population is increasing. It is quite likely that were are overpopulated generally as is -- while we can support our current population fine on its current average quality of life, we CANNOT support it on a western quality of life simply because the resources do not exist. This means that the population has to decrease EVERYWHERE or it will ensure that certain populations will remain behind the curve for a long time. European and Japanese populations are responding to this social pressure because they are the most advanced in the world. If their quality of life does in fact decrease due to immigration, which remains to be seen, the population in those countries (at this point where they originated means nothing and has always meant nothing) will once again start to rise...

You seem to be suggesting that because the source of further population booms are so-called foreigners, the whities in europe should start fucking. This is an idiotic proposal as an increase in population in Europe will actually more than likely result in a down turn in average quality of life as the economies and thus the governments are no longer able to support the status quo...

I really don't see any problems with this at all, because intentionality is left entirely to the individual level, contrary to your, as usual, mindless examples of sterilization or murder!

In all honesty, I am a bit surprised you haven't thought this through a bit more, but then again, maybe actually believe your 'I became a republican because the democratic party left the white man behind' rhetoric.

I don't know who my children will marry. I don't care as long as they are happy.

[hardeeharhar]

The head scarves argument is weak.

I have lived my life with constant reminders of other people's religious preferences, whether it be a cross on the end of a neckless, a skull cap, or a head dress, and not once did I find a reason to enforce my preference (none) on them.

All of these traditions are archaic and idiotic, but they are traditions and traditions alone. The character of the children in head dresses or with Kippahs is no different than the character of the children without. They are wearing them because of their devotion to THEIR religion (or some interpretation of it), if they are doing it of their own free will, who are we to take away that freedom?

[trumptman]

Nick,

You are not so tacitly couching this in terms of outsiders versus insiders, which is complete bullshit.

Nonsense and your dismissal is nothing more than a refusal to address the question at hand. No one has to assimilate just because they immigrate. The assumption that just because you let someone into a country they are obligated to think or act a certain way is yours.

Humans are not at risk of going extinct, yet.

I never made that claim so find a better straw man.

Our world wide population is increasing.

Yes, but not uniformly. Certain values are promoting that increase while others are working against it. The good and bad you assign to those values might work well within your own worldview, but that doesn't mean nature or evolution endorse those worldviews.

It is quite likely that were are overpopulated generally as is -- while we can support our current population fine on its current average quality of life, we CANNOT support it on a western quality of life simply because the resources do not exist.

Nonsense on the overpopulation bit. Progress has rendered every previous prediction of overpopulation wrong and will do so in the future as well assuming those making the progress don't kill themselves off first.

This means that the population has to decrease EVERYWHERE or it will ensure that certain populations will remain behind the curve for a long time.

By what insane sort of reasoning do you assume the western quality of life is something that other populations aspire to or are willing to sacrifice population growth to obtain? That is the very sort of point I put forward that you dismiss. We are in the middle east installing western values. Their answer is that they will send their best and brightest to carry suitcase bombs to our doorstep to insure this doesn't occur since it amounts to genocide in terms of population.

European and Japanese populations are responding to this social pressure because they are the most advanced in the world.

Nonsense. They are the most self-absorbed in the world. Ten hours a day of media means they don't have ten minutes to screw. They've bought into a destructive mindset. They'd rather own DVD's and quote Star Wars than procreate. It is consumerism to death.

If their quality of life does in fact decrease due to immigration, which remains to be seen, the population in those countries (at this point where they originated means nothing and has always meant nothing) will once again start to rise...

Yet the argument has been that quality of life leads to depopulation. We are told that since people don't have or earn enough, they won't procreate. Now you feed us the reverse.

You seem to be suggesting that because the source of further population booms are so-called foreigners, the whities in europe should start fucking. This is an idiotic proposal as an increase in population in Europe will actually more than likely result in a down turn in average quality of life as the economies and thus the governments are no longer able to support the status quo...

You miss the point entirely. The assumption by you is that these "foreigners" will basically start acting like the former "whities in europe" and simply have different names and skin colors. You assume the assimilation. You believe that for example because you value education for women and are tolerant of homosexual marriage, that they will be as well.

How can that assumption be proven? It can't, in fact given the current contrary views, it is a dangerous assumption. When you add to it the justification and belief that by adopting your viewpoints they sentence their own genetic future to either not exist or be greatly reduced and there is even more justification not to adopt the values or worldview of the culture that has allowed them to immigrate.

I really don't see any problems with this at all, because intentionality is left entirely to the individual level, contrary to your, as usual, mindless examples of sterilization or murder!

Individuality is a western value. Your assumption that immigrants will adopt it is nothing more than that... an assumption. The cultures we are talking about would gladly kill their own daughter for dishonoring the family. Individuality has nothing to do with that sort of decision-making.

In all honesty, I am a bit surprised you haven't thought this through a bit more, but then again, maybe actually believe your 'I became a republican because the democratic party left the white man behind' rhetoric.

Perhaps you ought to investigate the trade stance of many of those Democrats who won. You would see it is fair trade and following exactly what I have said.

I don't know who my children will marry. I don't care as long as they are happy.

You assume a future that is the same as your past. You assume that if the person they happen to marry beats them that no-fault divorce would still be around. You assume your little girls would have rights in the future that they possess today. Perhaps they won't if Sharia law is the law of the land.

Again French Muslim leaders are already making requests to allow Muslims to operate under Sharia law. In 50 years, this won't have to be a request. It will be majority rule and they will be the majority.

Why would they adopt all your assumptions, to pursue material goods over their own religious views, to pursue jobs, education or consumerism over family and children and finally to choose to depopulate when it will have been birthrate that will have given them the keys to the kingdom.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

...it's gonna be one of those looooooooooooooong threads again... :rolleyes:

It would be interesting if the future headed in the direction of a new global religious order. Like a new Dark Ages. It's not wholly inconceivable, but the world's majority has always been moderate.

[hardeeharhar]

You went off on assumptions I don't have. I don't assume that people will assimilate, nor do I have to assume anything about the nature of law in the US for my statement concerning my hypothetical children to be true -- if they are happy with their partners (regardless of all other things outside of them) then that is all a parent can ask for. As for most of your post, I can't be bothered to read it -- but you do seem to have a problem with understanding and separating quality of life from culture objects placed on it.

Now the following statement:

Yet the argument has been that quality of life leads to depopulation. We are told that since people don't have or earn enough, they won't procreate. Now you feed us the reverse.

What I am telling you is the truth: Populations with a lower quality of life will tend to reproduce more. This has and will always remain true. Their lifetimes will be shorter, certainly, but that goes with the whole quality of life thing...

On the desire for a 'western' existence... Haven't travelled much, have you? :)

If you had actually left your nice little cocoon you would realize that every bit of progress technologically, medicinally etc produces a 'western' quality of life. This has nothing to do with actually having western laws etc, but has everything to do with the actual quality of life, which doesn't, now I will take this slowly for your pea-brained understanding, have anything to do with laws or culture barring the rare circumstance of prevention of care or access to goods -- any example you will cite, I can easily call up Jimmy Crow or Apartheid, so enjoy your self-righteous ball of hatred.

The best medical care in Tehran may come with a Koran, but it looks and is amazingly the same as the care you get in Washington, DC. It is the nature of progress, countries start looking the same, lives start becoming more the same, the barriers that separate us culturally are limited in their pervasiveness. A muslim surgeon from iraq will find himself at home in a 'western' hospital.

We are all humans, Nick, regardless of our 'culture'.

[hardeeharhar]

Nick,

Your title speaks of extinction... so if that was a straw man, then by god, you cooked it up for me...

Edit: Islam does not have anything against individuality. Current interpretations by certain Mulsim leadership suggests otherwise, I will grant you that, but most muslims I know personally as well as the entirety of north africa, and most of the nations on Arabian peninsula (and almost all Muslims outside of that region) suggest that you are full of it.

Think about historically before you go off on a tangent again, the Moorish empire was the most tolerant entity on earth until the Catholics decided to wage their crusades...

[MacRR]

I guess if you find other cultures repulsive completely then this would be cause for alarm.

But since I have been around the block called Earth a few times- I'd love to see some Asian, and European, and African, and all kinds of other cultures swirl around a bit more in our country making it into a huge cornucopia of cultures/religions/colors... oh wait- that's the USA already.

I used to date this girl from Northern Italy- and the first thing she said when she looked at my high school year book was how diverse it was. She'd never seen a class picture with so many races and differences. I grew up in an urban environment, so all that is the norm for me.

Hell, it's the norm for anyone who grew up in an urban area in the USA. Now- when it comes to all those country folks- I guess they'd be worried about their precious culture. Can't be having any outsiders ruining their culture!

Diversity and blending of cultures as it occurs in the USA has always been regarded as a strength, IMO. If we look back to what the culture in the USA was even 40 years ago-- it's way different now- so there's no reason to believe it won't keep evolving and changing into something else- if not better.

[Flounder]

This whole concept is just as idiotic as the idea that because there are higher birth rates in red states, the country will become overwhelmingly republican.

[segovius]

Western culture is dying and will soon be extinct.

This is not a bad thing. Read your Gibbon. Humanity progresses and the Cultures that cannot transcend barbarism die out. It's a good thing.

The stupidity of this article cited is that it assumes as a subtext that 'other cultures' (ie ones that are seen as inferior or barbaric) will be the benefactors and 'take over' - this is stupidity as these will also die when the Western one does.

The analogy would be to believe that the Vandals or Huns would be the successors to Rome when it finally fell just because they were the visible opposition.

Actually the lameness of the quality of this kind of thinking is another text-book proof (if more were needed) that standards have declined to the point of atrophy.

There is another underlying issue in the article and the original poster's position: that of 'fear of the other' but as this has been artificially manufactured as a sheep-scaring mechanism we cannot legitimately include it as a symptom of the coming extinction.

I look forward to the next civilization, raise my glass to whoever has the balls to grab the baton and hope they don't f*ck up as bad as we did.

[jamac]

Western culture is dying and will soon be extinct.

I look forward to the next civilization, raise my glass to whoever has the balls to grab the baton and hope they don't f*ck up as bad as we did.

Who cares, and why would it matter and what is "Western Culture"?


Clang to you! Seg! Now let's party like its 2999!

[segovius]

Who cares, and why would it matter and what is "Western Culture"?

Clang to you! Seg! Now let's party like its 2999!

Well, Western Culture is largely based on the Spanish Islamic model anyway so the wingers amongst us might find a silver lining in the cloud of destruction....

Either way we can all celebrate.......I'll bring the Dom Perignon 8)

[groverat]

I find myself unmoved by the fear-mongering argument describing a massive wave of Muslims overtaking our lands like slow-moving locusts.

I really do not even know what is meant by "Western culture", really.

I just have no idea how to even approach these questions, because these questions seem to have very little basis in reality.

[trumptman]

As for most of your post, I can't be bothered to read it -- but you do seem to have a problem with understanding and separating quality of life from culture objects placed on it.


I'll ignore the rest because a reply has to actual deal with what was typed and not what you care to attack me about, claim about me, or any other such nonsense.

You don't want to read my posts. You obviously haven't read the linked article. There is a reason they call it a "reply" and you haven't met the criteria so you can be ignored.

Nick

[trumptman]

I guess if you find other cultures repulsive completely then this would be cause for alarm.

Do you hold all cultures in equal regard? Why do you use a slippery-slope to dismiss any and all concerns as invalid? Can one express a concern about another culture without finding all other cultures completely repulsive?

Diversity and blending of cultures as it occurs in the USA has always been regarded as a strength, IMO. If we look back to what the culture in the USA was even 40 years ago-- it's way different now- so there's no reason to believe it won't keep evolving and changing into something else- if not better.

What if it isn't better? I've never claimed that diversity and blending of cultures would somehow stop.

Could you just address that for me for a second. What if it isn't better? Better still what if it is better, but better by a standard that after evolving and changing into something else.. doesn't meet your definition of better.

That is the whole point here. To evolve, blend and change, you have to be here. You have to stick around. Would you knowingly adopt an ideal that lead to your own or say the self-extinction of your own family as a good value?

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

The article is FUD, Nick...

So is your response to it.

The term auto-genocide is the clincher. The imperiled future at the hands of the Mohammedans... Funny, I thought Racists were supposed to be part of that whole triumverant of evil, and you cite this article as a good source...Funny...

[trumptman]

The article is FUD, Nick...

So is your response to it.

The term auto-genocide is the clincher. The imperiled future at the hands of the Mohammedans... Funny, I thought Racists were supposed to be part of that whole triumverant of evil, and you cite this article as a good source...Funny...

Thanks for proving you are consistent. You still "reply" and still haven't read anything all while calling names.

Fantastic!

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

I read your ridiculous opinion piece. I replied to the bullshit you have attempt to pass off as original thought, or interesting, or OMGWTFBBQ!

Just because your choice in thread topic reveals that you are a Racist Asshole (and dare I say, sexist at times), doesn't mean I haven't read... I discounted everything you said in your you assume too much post by positing that I haven't assumed anything, that in fact you are the one assuming too much... but if you really want to place me in a box of people who just insult and insult and insult, I will happily join them:

You are a racist sexist son of a bitch, Nick. Your posts and your thread choice degrades this forum.

[midwinter]

Why is "multiculturalism" the bogeyman here and not the more obvious issue: when people get educated, they tend not to have babies; when people live in cities, they tend not to have babies.

[trumptman]

I read your ridiculous opinion piece. I replied to the bullshit you have attempt to pass off as original thought, or interesting, or OMGWTFBBQ!

Just because your choice in thread topic reveals that you are a Racist Asshole (and dare I say, sexist at times), doesn't mean I haven't read... I discounted everything you said in your you assume too much post by positing that I haven't assumed anything, that in fact you are the one assuming too much... but if you really want to place me in a box of people who just insult and insult and insult, I will happily join them:

You are a racist sexist son of a bitch, Nick. Your posts and your thread choice degrades this forum.

It's nice to know that after getting called onto the carpet for not actually dealing with the article posted or the views espoused related to it that you go completely ape-shit with personal attacks. I don't have to put you in a "box," your own limited intellectual ability has done that for you. You lash out because you cannot comprehend and so you reconstruct the issue into something your mind can grasp and respond to that instead.

/hardee

That trumptman is a racist asshole because he suggests that other cultures might not want to adopt the view that breeding at non-replacement levels is a "good thing" and might refuse to assimilate other values that they consider secondary as well. This includes folks from China to Russia but I'll box into into my view of whitey versus brownie or White Europe versus Muslims or... well fuck it... it didn't have to make sense anyway... racist..racist...racist... racist...

/unhardee

I suppose I could explain it to you again and this time speak slower, and use lower vocabulary comparable to your intellectual level, but you've shown that you can't think outside your box.

I've never questioned the color or even background of the folks immigrating into Europe or the U.S. I've simply stated that having a culture that can no longer sustain itself in terms of birthrate is not a healthy thing. You must be the most radically racist person of all because to even suggest that it is not healthy makes you go completely ape-shit.

People in Japan, the United States, China and most of Europe are no longer having children at population replacement levels...

/hardee.. OMG, trumptman hates all the people that are having children at population replacement levels...

Umm... where the hell do you make that logical leap??? How do you justify such a claim?

The people immigrating to nations, in part to offset the lack childbirth might want to adopt all the values of that nation, especially those that seem to discourage childbirth.

/hardee... OMG... you are saying we are going extinct which is complete bullshit and a lie... cuz you're a racist.

Yeah... again I can see how 2+2= about 27 in your book of logic.

/hardee... yeah but it was in the thread title and ....racist...racist..racist...racist...

So anyway... you've shown your true stripes... put yourself in your own box of limited thought and also proven that you prefer to shower me with personal attacks to cover your lack of intellectual vigor. You can claim I'm in a cocoon, sheltered, racist, sexist, hell whatever else you care to cook up. You've never once addressed the fact that by any objective scale, especially any scientific scale, a group that cannot sustain itself and propagate itself is not considered healthy or good.

Western society can no longer propagate itself. It should not be considered healthy or good.

/hardee... yeah but he is saying white people are good and others are not...

Yes hardee.... by calling them unhealthy and bad, I'm really preaching their superiority. You found me out.

Better still, I suggest that the other societies might be smart enough to not adopt these attributes....

/hardee... he is saying muslims, outsiders, or whatever other box I want to toss out there are bad!

Again, you found me out! In stating they will be smart enough to survive while we are dumb enough to kill ourselves for our "culture" I'm really saying they are idiots and we are brilliant!

Dude, you are just laughable and become more so by the second.

Nick

[trumptman]

Why is "multiculturalism" the bogeyman here and not the more obvious issue: when people get educated, they tend not to have babies; when people live in cities, they tend not to have babies.

I've not said that multiculturalism is the bogeyman. I've simply said that people can use it espouse contradictions instead of being called out to actually resolve them.

You've started down the path a bit. Let's see if this thread can actually get going.

You noted that the more educated and urbanized a person, the lower their birth rate tends to be.

What if you offered people the opportunity to move to the city and get educated, perhaps even for free and they refused stating that it would lower their birth rate and that happens to be a value that they prioritize higher than education or the benefits of urbanization?

An example is the headscarf ban in France. A few of the rationals in adopting it are separation of church and state/secularism, and also promotion of gender equity, all western values and ideals.

For now these values, secularism and gender equality can be "forced" onto the Muslim minority. However if the Muslim minority manages to insulate themselves from these values and continue to have their birthrate not only continue at a rate higher than replacement levels but at a rate three times higher than the native French rate, then who will be able to legislative their views into law 25-40 years from now?

It would be easy to simply be dismissive and state that the Western values are correct and the Muslim values are wrong. I suppose if I lived in that previously mentioned "cocoon" I could do that easily. Instead it should be asked who is really right objectively, if such a thing can even be determined. It appears the Muslims will be right over the long run with regard to majority rule. It is also very telling that when we push these values which we consider very positive they are met with hostility.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

/hardee

Nick
Nick, neither the article nor your race-baiting comments justify the existence of this thread. There is no evidence that this undefined European culture (we have apparently forgotten about Japan, because afterall they are slanty eyed and not under some perceived external threat) is going to be replaced by some boogeyman Muslim society.

I take issue with the follow pieces of shit you have dropped:

*That this is a genocide. <-- this is the one that pisses me off the most... you feel oppressed, that your people are getting slaughtered? go whine to the Sudanese.
*That Muslim society is either incapable or against what could be termed a democratic/multicultural society <-- they after all established the front runner of modern Western culture, best assume they realized their mistake and are rectifying it right?
*That these societies are actually diametrically opposed to eachother... Yeah, that's what they said about the Irish when they came to the US...
*That you have an intellectual prowess represented in this (or any of your other) threads <-- seriously, instead of trying to lead people down a forum topic, attempt to engage them instead of making insanely bad choices in both language and assumptions.

You continue to make assumptions about Muslim society. Define Muslim Society. Define European Society. SHOW that they are diametrically opposed instead of doing the weak conservative man's well if everyone says its so, lets assume its so...

[trumptman]

Nick, neither the article nor your race-baiting comments justify the existence of this thread. .

I suppose I'll take it up with the imaginary "thread existence police" that seem to exist in your head.

There is no evidence that this undefined European culture (we have apparently forgotten about Japan, because afterall they are slanty eyed and not under some perceived external threat) is going to be replaced by some boogeyman Muslim society.

Actually I think you need the prescription of our glasses checked.

This is in the very first post written by me.

I say this because many people do, regardless of what they claim consider western culture to be good and decent. Yet it seems that whomever practices it, regardless of their actual ethnicity, ends up committing a form of self-suicide.


I take issue with the follow pieces of shit you have dropped:

I take issue with your inability to comprehend and refusal to stop mis-characterizing that which you appear not to understand.

*That this is a genocide. <-- this is the one that pisses me off the most... you feel oppressed, that your people are getting slaughtered? go whine to the Sudanese.

I could care less about "my people" as you characterize it. People like yourself have been screaming for years about things like "Look we were promised parades with flowers when we freed Iraq, instead they are killing us and considering us an occupation force."

Part of the reflection on that is to note that it isn't just in Iraq. This same resistance is true in most of Europe as well. When we say "take off the headscarf and accept secularization" and they say "sorry, but that is cultural and population genocide" it is a fair point to consider whether their view is valid and our own wrong.

*That Muslim society is either incapable or against what could be termed a democratic/multicultural society <-- they after all established the front runner of modern Western culture, best assume they realized their mistake and are rectifying it right?

Again poor comprehension on your part. I've never said they would end democracy. I've stated quite the opposite. I've said we have to consider what a democracy in which they are the majority will look like. It might not look good by our current standards. By "our" I mean the views represented by those who currently hold power in these democracies.

I asked if their version of these democracies might not actually be better, even if it doesn't jib with our current views. Don't you understand that this represents openness instead of condemnation? (Apparently you don't) Don't you understand that a willingness to question whether the current views that create our low birthrate might be wrong is in fact not an advocation of superiority? (Apparently, again you don't)

*That these societies are actually diametrically opposed to each other... Yeah, that's what they said about the Irish when they came to the US...

The "or" thinking is your own. You are welcome to quote any actual language where I said it was either "us" or "them" since that is how you keep misrepresenting this. It isn't that way. This is the box you have created. I said by our view the Muslim culture might be wrong or backward. Yet if it persists while the other culture dies, which is really wrong?

*That you have an intellectual prowess represented in this (or any of your other) threads <-- seriously, instead of trying to lead people down a forum topic, attempt to engage them instead of making insanely bad choices in both language and assumptions.

I don't have to "lead" people anywhere. You can use language to "dress up" your personal attacks, but the reality is they are still personal attacks. You are welcome to cite your own credentials for judging intellectual prowess since you deem yourself fit to judge mine. I'll be happy to see them.

You continue to make assumptions about Muslim society. Define Muslim Society. Define European Society. SHOW that they are diametrically opposed instead of doing the weak conservative man's well if everyone says its so, lets assume its so...

I've not said they are diametrically opposed. That is your misrepresentation. I've stated they certainly have different priorities and when they press those priorities into law, that society that exists then might look very different than it does now. I've stated that others might judge it a "bad" society. However how bad can it be if it persists while the advocates of other ideals die off and have no intellectual heirs?

France for example places secularism above personal religious freedom. If in 40 years France as a society decides that personal religious freedom should be placed above secularism, that will be a change to that society. The knee jerk reaction might be to condemn this as bad. I've said we ought not jerk that knee and should be open to other views. If secularism leads to a population that doesn't reproduce and exercise of personal religious freedom leads to a society that does, which is objectively better?

You really seem hung up on the Muslim angle. Perhaps you could think about it better if we used Amish since they are closer to you. Amish do not educate past eighth grade. They also refuse to pay for or accept forms of social insurance like Social Security. They do however vote. If their values create a larger population over time and the surrounding communities values create a smaller population, it is clear that eventually the government that earns their votes would begin to reflect Amish values more.

Note that doesn't mean all humanity is going extinct.

That doesn't mean I hate the Amish.

That doesn't mean it is "us" versus the Amish.

Suppose this Amish majority government ended subsidies for higher education and demanded private accounts for retirement instead of social insurance. Is that society better or worse? How do we judge it as such?

Do some thinking...

Nick

[dmz]

You continue to make assumptions about Muslim society. Define Muslim Society. Define European Society. SHOW that they are diametrically opposed instead of doing the weak conservative man's well if everyone says its so, lets assume its so...
ummmmmm..... hardeeharhar.......

Where would you rather live, Paris or Kabul?

Where would you rather visit a gay bar, Amsterdam or Tehran?

Where would you rather attend a Christian service, London or Islamabad?

Where would your girlfriend be treated equally, Berlin or Riyadh?


You know, there is a serious amount of cognitive dissonance going on here. (The Imams on a plane comes to mind.) If Christians had one whole corner of the world monopolized/wrecked with institutionalized disrespect for everything from women to good scotch, all you lovely lefties would need sedatives.

[hardeeharhar]

Nick,

You are continuing to suggest an us v. them in the implication of a lack of intellectual heirs, and the justification of concern.

No society, however obscure, has left nothing behind.

A judgement on the legitimacy of one society over the other is irrelevant, it is all a matter of history, and I take the long (millennial) view of the world. The current debate will, of course, be forgotten as a minor issue of the 21st century.

Who cares whether a society fails because of disease or famine or war or choices of their leaders or lower birth rates due to disease or famine or war or choice?

[hardeeharhar]

ummmmmm..... hardeeharhar.......

Where would you rather live, Paris or Kabul?

Where would you rather visit a gay bar, Amsterdam or Tehran?

Where would you rather attend a Christian service, London or Islamabad?

Where would your girlfriend be treated equally, Berlin or Riyadh?


You know, there is a serious amount of cognitive dissonance going on here. (The Imams on a plane comes to mind.) If Christians had one whole corner of the world monopolized/wrecked with institutionalized disrespect for everything from women to good scotch, all you lovely lefties would need sedatives.

Kabul, if it was in a nation as stable as France, say. A better example would be Fez or Rabat, Morocco...

I wouldn't visit a gay bar.

I wouldn't, by choice, attend a Christian service or a Jewish service or...

Depends on whether my girlfriend was a Muslim.

See the point? Every nation is different...

[Flounder]

What if you offered people the opportunity to move to the city and get educated, perhaps even for free and they refused stating that it would lower their birth rate and that happens to be a value that they prioritize higher than education or the benefits of urbanization?

I'd tell them that their first piece of free education would be the lesson the cart and the horse and the order in which one generally places them.

Lesson two would be ecological fallacy.

[midwinter]

I've not said that multiculturalism is the bogeyman. I've simply said that people can use it espouse contradictions instead of being called out to actually resolve them.

Sure. But some contradictions can't be resolved. This is a perennial question, and it's basically ethnocentrism vs anti-ethnocentrism vs anti-anti-ethnocentrism (not to be confused with ethnocentrism). I suspect, but I'm not sure, that you are an anti-anti-ethnocentrist, which means you reject the notion that all cultures should be considered relatively regardless of primacy within the nation-state). But that's neither here nor there.


You noted that the more educated and urbanized a person, the lower their birth rate tends to be.

What if you offered people the opportunity to move to the city and get educated, perhaps even for free and they refused stating that it would lower their birth rate and that happens to be a value that they prioritize higher than education or the benefits of urbanization?

Has this happened? I mean, is anyone out there advocating massive education pushes in the Hispanic community specifically because it will lead to a decline in their population increase?

An example is the headscarf ban in France. A few of the rationals in adopting it are separation of church and state/secularism, and also promotion of gender equity, all western values and ideals.

For now these values, secularism and gender equality can be "forced" onto the Muslim minority. However if the Muslim minority manages to insulate themselves from these values and continue to have their birthrate not only continue at a rate higher than replacement levels but at a rate three times higher than the native French rate, then who will be able to legislative their views into law 25-40 years from now?

What happens? Assuming that they're able to infiltrate the institutions, which would remain Old French and white and Christian for a number of generations, they'll change the country. But that takes a long, long time. Look at America. How many black senators are there? congressmen? How radically have they changed things since they got the right to vote?

My concern about this discussion is that it sounds an awful lot like some particularly nasty conversations in the past—about Jews; about black folks. Now it's hispanics and muslims.

It would be easy to simply be dismissive and state that the Western values are correct and the Muslim values are wrong. I suppose if I lived in that previously mentioned "cocoon" I could do that easily. Instead it should be asked who is really right objectively, if such a thing can even be determined. It appears the Muslims will be right over the long run with regard to majority rule. It is also very telling that when we push these values which we consider very positive they are met with hostility.

I think, probably, that the better example right now is Ireland, which is in the midst of a massive immigration influx. First off, they've never had to deal with it; second, loads of the people I talked to in Limerick a couple of summers ago expressed a concern that bordered on racism. More on this below.

Apologies for the metaphor that follows. I *think* I'm remembering this from an essay of Schlessinger's. Western countries tend to be "stew-pots," not "melting pots." I know that we grow up in America thinking that we're a melting pot, but we're not. We tend to exist in little enclaves (think the various parts of NYC or Chicago or LA): race, religion, economics, etc. We leave our little enclave, and in the process, we agree to accept things that we wouldn't necessarily put up with in our homes, in order to function. In a stew-pot, all the ingredients retain their individual flavors and identities but enrich the whole. In other words, identity it retained, not absorbed into a brown mush.

But here's the problem with the concern that America values will be radically transformed by an influx of immigrants: it hasn't. Ever. Why? Because immigration follows distinct patterns. First wave immigrants keep to themselves and others like them. Italians live in Italian neighborhoods and speak Italian and work with Italians. Their kids reject their ethnic heritage by and large and assimilate just fine. The next generation gets interested in it again, but not so much that they would endanger their assimilation. So assimilation is not total, but it's close enough that even now, people who have lived in America for hundreds of years know that their ancestors came from England or Ireland or Scotland or whatever. But it's so diluted that any renaissance of "_______ power" would be absurd.

[Splinemodel]

On paper we can claim one culture is better. Yet if that culture dies on the vine due to lack of descendants while another prospers, even by using means we might consider primitive of backwards, who really wins in terms of nature or objectively? An ideal in a book can't very well advocate itself. Especially when those who are still alive can deny the right to learn to read, or burn the book printed by those dead and gone.

Human cultural success and failure are very similar to other natural processes: boom and bust, rise and fall, 0 and pi, etc.

[trumptman]

Nick,

You are continuing to suggest an us v. them in the implication of a lack of intellectual heirs, and the justification of concern.

So that would be a no on the quote part then. The assignment of justification of concern is done by you. Making note of it is not the same as assigning a value to it. The latter is what you claim I have done. Again, find the quote.

No society, however obscure, has left nothing behind.

You really seem incapable of addressing the matter at hand. I spend time discussing a rearrangement of priorities or promotion of different values and that becomes "leaving nothing behind" in your mind. Sad really.

A judgement on the legitimacy of one society over the other is irrelevant, it is all a matter of history, and I take the long (millennial) view of the world. The current debate will, of course, be forgotten as a minor issue of the 21st century.

Will it really? I tried to help you with the Amish example. The Amish do not promote rampant individualism, nor consumerism nor even much modern in terms of what might despoil our planet. Do you think if we all lived as the Amish did that our cars would be spewing so much pollution and that global warming would be on everyone's tongues?

Minor indeed. Priorities can determine a lot about the present and the future.

Who cares whether a society fails because of disease or famine or war or choices of their leaders or lower birth rates due to disease or famine or war or choice?

Who cares indeed. However what about when the future society declares that they will no longer adopt the values of the previous "failed" society. Suppose universal education for example were one of those values tossed aside. Who cares right?

I mean who are we to judge that society.

Nick

[dmz]

Kabul, if it was in a nation as stable as France, say. A better example would be Fez or Rabat, Morocco...

I wouldn't visit a gay bar.

I wouldn't, by choice, attend a Christian service or a Jewish service or...

Depends on whether my girlfriend was a Muslim.

See the point? Every nation is different...

Yes, but they are different -- in a lot of respects exhaustively different. I don't think that Amsterdam or Sweden could be more different than, say, Iran.

[100mph]

Trumptman,

"western values", is that when we kill around the world to preserve a certain way of life @ home (cars running @ 10mpg, suburbs, no public transportation, MG food, etc.)?

[hardeeharhar]

So that would be a no on the quote part then. The assignment of justification of concern is done by you. Making note of it is not the same as assigning a value to it. The latter is what you claim I have done. Again, find the quote.

You fail. You didn't address the fact that you are framing this in an insider v outsider debate.



You really seem incapable of addressing the matter at hand. I spend time discussing a rearrangement of priorities or promotion of different values and that becomes "leaving nothing behind" in your mind. Sad really.

And your hypotheticals are my history. No society has left nothing. Your hypotheticals are about as relevant as the movie that got your opinion piece started...


Will it really? I tried to help you with the Amish example. The Amish do not promote rampant individualism, nor consumerism nor even much modern in terms of what might despoil our planet. Do you think if we all lived as the Amish did that our cars would be spewing so much pollution and that global warming would be on everyone's tongues?

Minor indeed. Priorities can determine a lot about the present and the future.


Doesn't change the fact that the discussions of pursuing modern life that were ongoing at the time of the Amish schism are largely forgotten. Yeah. Minor. Nobody cares what people were thinking at any given time, they only care about what historians have decided to write about -- and if one society is absolutely demolished as is your claim (no intellectual heritage) then they won't be writing about your concerns for those auto-genocidal europeans and their infertile pussies .


Who cares indeed. However what about when the future society declares that they will no longer adopt the values of the previous "failed" society. Suppose universal education for example were one of those values tossed aside. Who cares right?

I mean who are we to judge that society.

Nick

Who cares? Do you actively judge the actions of the slave holders of the 19th century whose rights to property you would more than likely have defended, assuming that you bought the human as property argument (which I am not suggesting you would have)? Or do you mark down in your book that thank god we don't do that anymore? By all rights, the freedoms of white men have been reduced since then -- we are no longer able to own slaves or indentured servants...

It isn't a matter of judgement, Nick. It is a matter of relevance. What was relevant 200 years ago isn't now. What will be relevant 200 years from now certainly isn't on our radar now. Defending or advocating or just pointing out *something* about cultures as they stand now simply doesn't matter.

I don't know who my great grand children will be.

[hardeeharhar]

Yes, but they are different -- in a lot of respects exhaustively different. I don't think that Amsterdam or Sweden could be more different than, say, Iran.
No. They're could be an active cannibalistic, polytheistic, matriarchy where men are kept in brothels and killed and eaten once they reach the age of 18...

dmz, not so different after all?

[SpamSandwich]

If you're worried about genetic obsolescence, marry a Chinese or Indian woman...

[trumptman]

Sure. But some contradictions can't be resolved. This is a perennial question, and it's basically ethnocentrism vs anti-ethnocentrism vs anti-anti-ethnocentrism (not to be confused with ethnocentrism). I suspect, but I'm not sure, that you are an anti-anti-ethnocentrist, which means you reject the notion that all cultures should be considered relatively regardless of primacy within the nation-state). But that's neither here nor there.

Too many notes.:devil:

Has this happened? I mean, is anyone out there advocating massive education pushes in the Hispanic community specifically because it will lead to a decline in their population increase?

I don't know if it quite so linear. There has obviously been some strong resistance to certain attempts to modernize and westernize certain groups by those groups. This resistance appears to go beyond the typical three generation of assimilation trend you note.

We have, for example spent billions attempting to improve educational performance among certain groups. Some may even note that when the money hasn't addressed the performance gap, that it becomes a values question. They might say "that group doesn't value education." However that is only half the answer. The other half is to ask "what is it they value over education?"

What happens? Assuming that they're able to infiltrate the institutions, which would remain Old French and white and Christian for a number of generations, they'll change the country. But that takes a long, long time. Look at America. How many black senators are there? congressmen? How radically have they changed things since they got the right to vote?

I would argue that Blacks are nothing like Hispanic or Muslim immigration. As their own leaders argue, their language, customs and traditions were stripped away and replaced. They are perhaps the strongest possible example of forced assimilation. Hispanics and Muslims will have a choice on this matter and the choice appears to increasingly be to retain their separate ethnic identities and also separate values.

My concern about this discussion is that it sounds an awful lot like some particularly nasty conversations in the past—about Jews; about black folks. Now it's hispanics and muslims.

I appreciate you expressing your concerns. I'm not framing the decline or replacement of Western culture with something else as a bad thing though. I'm stating that if a society cannot maintain and replace its own population perhaps that ought to be judged as a bad thing. Perhaps there is something wrong with it.

I would think that by that reasoning the Hispanics and Muslims become a "good thing."

I think, probably, that the better example right now is Ireland, which is in the midst of a massive immigration influx. First off, they've never had to deal with it; second, loads of the people I talked to in Limerick a couple of summers ago expressed a concern that bordered on racism. More on this below.

Apologies for the metaphor that follows. I *think* I'm remembering this from an essay of Schlessinger's. Western countries tend to be "stew-pots," not "melting pots." I know that we grow up in America thinking that we're a melting pot, but we're not. We tend to exist in little enclaves (think the various parts of NYC or Chicago or LA): race, religion, economics, etc. We leave our little enclave, and in the process, we agree to accept things that we wouldn't necessarily put up with in our homes, in order to function. In a stew-pot, all the ingredients retain their individual flavors and identities but enrich the whole. In other words, identity it retained, not absorbed into a brown mush.

But here's the problem with the concern that America values will be radically transformed by an influx of immigrants: it hasn't. Ever. Why? Because immigration follows distinct patterns. First wave immigrants keep to themselves and others like them. Italians live in Italian neighborhoods and speak Italian and work with Italians. Their kids reject their ethnic heritage by and large and assimilate just fine. The next generation gets interested in it again, but not so much that they would endanger their assimilation. So assimilation is not total, but it's close enough that even now, people who have lived in America for hundreds of years know that their ancestors came from England or Ireland or Scotland or whatever. But it's so diluted that any renaissance of "_______ power" would be absurd.

Again, familiar with the pattern and I don't recall if it was Schlessinger as well. It was also put forward at a time when assimilation was an ideal that was acceptable for society to promote.

I think there are differences this time. First you speak about ethnic enclaves. The difference this time, at least in my view is that the immigration is so vast that the immigrants do not swamp a certain area of certain cities, but instead of basically taken over entire cities and perhaps even states. (or whatever equivalent there might be in other countries within the EU as well)

The second generation from this group has not rejected their ethnic heritage at all. In fact the opposite has happened, especially in the United States because Mexico allows dual-citizenship and encourages their citizens abroad to send those dollars back home to their own country where the majority of assets are still held.

I'll toss in a couple related articles... this one (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/inland/la-me-winterbreak29dec29,1,5927326.story?coll=la-editions-inland-news&ctrack=1&cset=true) makes mention of the month long vacation many Hispanic families take in December. My own district is mentioned (we have a three week winter break this year) and while I hope the longer break improves academic performance, the priorities behind it, the choice between going to see family or go to school is illustrated very clearly as to which one loses and which one wins. The articles mostly glosses over numbers but the one mentioned by an actual teacher, roughly 33% absenteeism is what I have experienced.

This article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-tjcommute2jan02,1,1920499,full.story) makes mention of the fact that basically Mexico is the "ethnic enclave" and that American citizens with Mexican ancestry do not think odd at all to return to Mexico for any number of reasons. My friends of Mexican ancestry regularly run across the border for any number of needs.

I think there is a difference between running down to Little Italy to get some true spicy meatballs and running to say... Italy. The second generation, at least here in the U.S. are true dual citizens. They often maintain homes in both countries, keep family in both, and try to garner the best benefits and opportunities within both.

Understand that I am not saying this is a bad thing. There is a reason my sons attend school all day in Spanish. I'm simply stating it is very different from the previous pattern where the second generation wanted to grab and embrace all that was representative of their "new" homeland. This isn't the "New World" and the "Old World" this is grab whatever opportunities, jobs, benefits, etc. are available to you no matter what language or what side of the border they happen to be on.

So I think the concerns about values transformation, be it in America or Europe are valid this time. We also have never had a native population contraction occurring while tackling record immigration happen in the past. In California for example we might attempt to sooth our psyches by stating that although whites are now a minorities they are still the majority minority. Yet you look at the classrooms and it isn't anything like that. California classrooms are no where near 45-48% white. They are 50% Hispanic and around 30% White and that isn't 25-40 years from now. That is today.

Who is going to assimilate who? My son is learning Spanish. I'm coaching soccer. :lol: I know who butters my bread...um...er... tortilla.

In California this values transformation is already occurring.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

In CA there is already a sizable middle-class Hispanic population and they represent some of the biggest spenders of disposable income.

[dmz]

They're could be an active cannibalistic, polytheistic, matriarchy where men are kept in brothels and killed and eaten once they reach the age of 18...
Ha! what did I tell you about watching movies by Mel Gibson?

(No, not any whose ideas truly scale, or whose cultures last several centuries.)

[Nightcrawler]

I think that once the population of western societies reach a critical low, more radical solutions will be examined and eventually used, like for example a production of babies in laboratories, making it obligatory for every man of the age of 18-25 to give sperm, and women to give eggs, to these laboratories and factories...

Another variation could be human cloning, that could be legalised and used extensively...

These possibilities will probably only come into play if the self-regulation of societies, to produce more descendants naturally when quality of life sinks below a certain limit, fails.

Nightcrawler

[hardeeharhar]

There are several conjectures here that make no sense:

1) That quality of life for anyone but pensioners is at issue.
2) That immigrant communities don't become part and parcel of an economy -- that our only considerations should be CULTURE. (again, who cares?)

[trumptman]

I'd tell them that their first piece of free education would be the lesson the cart and the horse and the order in which one generally places them.

Lesson two would be ecological fallacy.

Are they really putting the cart before the horse or are we?

On the list of priorities is obtaining a degree and buying a DVD collection really ahead of say... propagating the species.

Cart and horse indeed.

Nick

[trumptman]

You fail. You didn't address the fact that you are framing this in an insider v outsider debate.

I'll address your contention when you support it. Making up crap and then claiming I have to "address" it might work when appealing to the thread police in your head. Your continued misunderstanding is not something I have to deal with. I asked you for quotes from my posts and replies to support your contention, you've provided none. Instead you want to make up what you think it says and then have me "address" that. Screw you.

And your hypotheticals are my history. No society has left nothing. Your hypotheticals are about as relevant as the movie that got your opinion piece started...

Yeah... well really thanks for addressing the fact that you now want me to address another contention you have made up, that I claimed Western society will "leave nothing behind." Again the quote from me to support that contention... can't be found. You need to read what I have posted and respond to it. Second warning and after that I will add you to my ignore list.

Doesn't change the fact that the discussions of pursuing modern life that were ongoing at the time of the Amish schism are largely forgotten. Yeah. Minor. Nobody cares what people were thinking at any given time, they only care about what historians have decided to write about -- and if one society is absolutely demolished as is your claim (no intellectual heritage) then they won't be writing about your concerns for those auto-genocidal europeans and their infertile pussies .

Wow, rank gibberish.

Who cares? Do you actively judge the actions of the slave holders of the 19th century whose rights to property you would more than likely have defended, assuming that you bought the human as property argument (which I am not suggesting you would have)? Or do you mark down in your book that thank god we don't do that anymore? By all rights, the freedoms of white men have been reduced since then -- we are no longer able to own slaves or indentured servants...

Hardy, to put it politely, fuck off. I seriously sick of your inability to respond to the material and instead keep linking me with some sort of racist overtones. You are officially ignored. Perhaps you will come off the list when you can stop with the ad-homs.

Nick

[trumptman]

In CA there is already a sizable middle-class Hispanic population and they represent some of the biggest spenders of disposable income.

That doesn't mean they don't send enough money back to Mexico to make the singl largest source of income even worth more than oil.

New Second Generation (http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special03/articles/0920phx-remit.html)

The person in the article, but do you think with his wife and family remaining in Mexico, or perhaps crossing over to whatever side they feel like for the day, they will match the previous model of three generation assimilation?

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

I'll address your contention when you support it. Making up crap and then claiming I have to "address" it might work when appealing to the thread police in your head. Your continued misunderstanding is not something I have to deal with. I asked you for quotes from my posts and replies to support your contention, you've provided none. Instead you want to make up what you think it says and then have me "address" that. Screw you.

Touched a nerve have I?

This is your frame work:
However how bad can it be if it persists while the advocates of other ideals die off and have no intellectual heirs?

You believe that societies can die off with 'no intellectual heirs.'

This entire thread exists because you support the notion that the properties of 'European' society lead it to decreased birth rates while the properties of external society X, which you indicate is bound to change things, because that is how the numbers work -- Russia, France, your examples abound, will lead it to win some sort of birth rate victory causing 'European' society to leave no intellectual heirs behind. It is the very fact that you bring in this external society, be it the Amish or muslims that makes this an US versus THEM debate. THEY will change OUR rules, THEY will allow girls to wear head dresses while WE don't want them to... You can't escape the fact that you are conceptualizing this as important only because there is an apparent clash of social values in the mixing societies. You have forgotten Japan because it doesn't fit your cliched approach to this problem...

Take my question asking you as a white man to truly judge your position on something (slavery as a property holders right) that was trivial to white men 200 years ago. In this case, and in this case alone there is no question of outsider. Society is changing due to internal demands placed upon it.

This debate has two faces. Europe, where the intellectual heirs are quite obviously the locals and immigrants, and the mixed society that results from immigration and Japan where the intellectual heirs are a reduced population of similar people, if not identical people.

[@_@ Artman]

I'm politely interrupting the flame war in sharing a great article fitting with this subject...

Imagine Earth without people (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225731.100)

"All things considered, it will only take a few tens of thousands of years at most before almost every trace of our present dominance has vanished completely. Alien visitors coming to Earth 100,000 years hence will find no obvious signs that an advanced civilization ever lived here."

A good read. When you get the chance. :smokey: