[ExI] Preserving Western Institutions and Values We Share Here

[Keith Henson]

Every single cited example in this post plus the Rwandan genocide, the
Cambodian Pol Pot experience, the current messes in Gaza and Darfur
and other examples of wars/genocides are all mechanistic (wired in)
responses to the perception of a bleak future by the populations
involved.

The perception ultimately stems from the population (or some sub
segment of the population) growing faster than the economic growth
rate.

How to deal with this problem is interesting.

Keith

PS.  How long will it take for the problem to become acute?  And when
is the latest date we can expect for the singularity?



On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> BillK wrote (in our wandering threads, this time in
> "Evils of the West") about expulsion as a phenomenon:
>
>> On 4/15/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>  Right. The extreme actions being suggested by
>>>  "some people" here, such as expulsions of
>>>  dangerous minorities, would in effect "rise
>>>  above principle". But, as was argued, sometimes
>>>  in history that seems to be the right thing to
>>>  do (e.g. what Lincoln had to do to win, what
>>>  FDR was afraid of, how the Catholics saved
>>>  France from Protestants in 1572, etc.).
>>
>> Your examples are, of course, examples of wartime ferocity.
>
> They were, but Europe exhibits many that were not.
> For example, the expulsions of the Moriscos by
> Spain (bad idea) was one, and expulsions of non-
> Catholics by France (good idea) was another.
>
> First I should explain those two cases I just
> mentioned, that might perplex the rapid reader.
>
> So many of the talented craftsman in southern Spain
> happened to be Moriscos (Moorish converts to Catholicism
> but who did not assimilate), that expelling them while
> Spain had so few people relative to France simply
> weakened Spain too much.
>
> (Interestingly, Spain at this time for some reason
> did share one problem with us: falling birth rates.)
>
> France on the other hand, made a good move to remain
> Catholic by expelling the Protestants (or killing
> them---what I should insist is a much more genuine
> atrocity), or (mainly) driving them out with
> persecution, *even though* they were among the
> most productive citizens. The analogy is as follows:
>
> Nation   France 1600s          France today (or other western
>                                       nation about to be
>                                       overwhelmed by Muslims)
>
>
> Value    Catholicism, the      Freedom of religion, press,
> System   the true religion     legal rights of all kinds
>         needing to be         not ever so far exhibited in
>         saved/defended        any Muslim dominated country
>
>> Your original discussion was about initiating a peacetime atrocity.
>
> Expulsions happen a lot, and don't need wars. Here was Mirco's list:
> http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2009-April/048941.html
>
> I never heard of mere expulsions described as 'atrocities'.
> A good example of an atrocity is when they just kill or
> maim a lot of people.
>
> In each and every case what is most important is is,
>
>   *Does the action in the long run damage or help preserve
>   the treasured values at the center of attention?*
>
> The risks are usually very great for a modern Western
> nation *because* one of its values is that it preserves
> (or tries to) the legal rights of all citizens.
> Earlier societies didn't have to face this dilemma.
>
> If a new drug that happened to make people into
> extremely violent and reckless marauders who no
> longer were at all productive, but just killed
> other people, and it were spreading like wildfire,
> should a country violate its own laws to suppress
> the spread of this drug, even though it was only
> being spread peaceably? What principle guides
> your response?
>
>> You'll have to declare war on Muslims first, for your original
>> suggestion to be implemented and supported by the population.
>
> I can't think of any expulsions where that was a necessary
> prerequisite, though the French Huguenots were *so* rich
> and well-organized that, practically, they'd been at real
> war with the Catholics for a long time.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugenot#End_of_persecution_and_restoration_of_French_citizenship
>
> So I don't see why a war would have to be
> declared, although certainly many Muslims
> living in Europe would see just *talk* of
> an expulsion as an act of war, since they
> already see even political cartoons that way.
>
> A key difference between expelling Moriscos,
> Jews, and Huguenots on the one hand, and for
> modern European nations to expel Muslims on
> the other, is that the latter are not nearly
> so economically and culturally valuable.
> Quite the reverse.
>
> This also is related, of course, to what to
> do about birth rates. The recent Russian
> experience helps to convince me that financial
> incentives are effective. In fact, France fell
> behind Germany in population in the 19th century
> ---with extremely bad consequences for all three
> wars since between them---by a mistake in the
> Napoleonic Code that kept down population
> growth in France.
>
> Lee
>
> P.S. Thanks for being past merely expressing
> revulsion, horror, and disgust.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>