[extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration

[Lee Corbin]

Spike writes

> > Sam Harris is an amazingly eloquent voice against religious belief.
> > In his book "The End of Faith", he has a couple of pretty scary
> > chapters about Islam too.
> > 
> >     As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance
> >     is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and
> >     economically subdued, converted, or put to sword....
> 
> Lee this whole debate reminds me of a recurring theme in Hofstadter's EGB.

I always envy your powers of free association, and seeing deeper connections! :-)

> He illustrated Godel's incompleteness theorem by having Mr. Crab obtaining
> ever more perfect stereo systems.  Mr. Tortoise would play on it records
> that created tones so perfectly tuned to the natural resonances of the
> system that the stereo self-destructed (GEB 75-78).  From that, Hofstadter
> explained Godel's theorem shows that no logic system can ever be designed
> that is completely free of paradox.
> 
> In our modern system of liberal democracy, freedom of religion, separation
> of church and state, so treasured by USians and Europeans, we have just such
> a paradox.

Yes. I suppose that it is indeed appropriate to call it a paradox.
Some kinds of free-thinking appear to sometimes assist an ESS
(Evolutionarily Stable Strategy) and sometimes they work against
it. We need to remember the great strength of the West actually
derived from its freedoms and tolerance too.

> What happens when a free society meets a religion that does not
> accept freedom, requires unification of church and state,
> deplores liberal democracy, and specifically demands slavery
> to that particular religion?

The short answer is that the free society may go down against determined
enough foes. Example: Japanese morale was vastly higher than America's
in world war; *only* lack of resources and lack of better technology did
them in. Those who believe strongly in something usually prevail against
those who believe in nothing, or those whose belief and self-confidence
is mild.

> Must a free society tolerate intolerance?  What happens if it does?  What
> happens if it does not?

My guess is that the free society, in order to survive, must *not* tolerate 
notions too inimical to its very existence. Of course, this is easier said
than done, and there are always enormous difficulties in determining whether
some groups or ideas have crossed the line. The difficulty is compounded by
the inevitable tendency for certain ruling groups to sometimes use this as
an excuse to strangle legitimate dissention and legitimate rivals.

Still, for a liberal society to be too liberal is tantamount to committing
suicide. That's the road the West is taking, and the demise of the West
looks inevitable to me (pace singularity, i.e. super-exponentially evolving
technology).

Lee

> Mr. Crab's stereo is shattered once again.
> 
> spike