[ExI] Religions and violence [Was Re: Sarah Palin]

[Jeff Davis]

2010/7/23 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

> I believe you can think of a
> cultural factor that is astronomically more likely to be the source of that
> HUGE Nobel deficit among the Islamic than bagels, but will not admit it

My speculation:

The Jews are successful because their historical coincidences
pushed them in the direction of mercantilism and finance capitalism.
History shows that these two economic practices promote modernity and
greater productivity.  The Jews have thus become rich by devoting
themselves to practices that enrich themselves and the wider world.
And they employed that wealth in practices -- education and culture --
which further enhanced both their wealth and pursuit of progress.  So
far it's mostly good.  I'll leave elaboration of the downside -- the
depredations of war-loving rapacious capitalism fueled by the
abundance of industrial productivity -- to "the reader".

Islam has followed a course more in line with religious conservatism.
That this has held Muslims "back" from the "blessings" of modernity,
seems a reasonable conclusion from what we see of the Muslim
"condition" today.  So the Muslim culture seems inclined to live by
traditional values and to not manifest the same enthusiasm for
cultural change via technology as the West.  And yes, I see this as a
consequence of the inherently conservative nature of the religious
practice -- Islam -- which is at the center of Muslim lives.

But -- and you knew this was coming -- where is it written that
smartness, or wealth, or Nobel Prizes is the metric by which to judge
one group "better" than another?

[Nobel invented the "death material", sold it by the ton, at
apparently a substantial profit, to the power elite of various
sovereign "nations" eager to employ it  killing and destroying their
way to dominance over their competitors.   Now this does not bear
directly on the issue: Jews progressive,smart, and constructive vs
Muslims stagnant, brain damaged, and destructive.  But if one
considers the downside, rebranding the Nobel prize as the Capitalist
Megadeath prize, then that 165 to 6 comparison doesn't quite feel as
impressive as before.]

So where are we?  Islam ended its militarily advance in Europe with
the Western pushback in Spain in the west and Vienna in the east,
settling into a period of consolidation and stability.   Then the
West, facilitated by finance capitalism, took up the imperialist
mantle, and starting in the mid 1300's, began conquering the world.
They tried to conquer the Muslim lands as well, but with only mixed
and temporary success, and with the sort of defensive pushback -- from
the Muslims this time -- one would naturally expect.

It's no crime to want to live the way you and yours have lived since
before you can remember.  The inventor of the better mousetrap, the
Collateralized Debt Obligation, or the tractor is not morally superior
to the cat owner, the guy who keeps his money in his mattress, or the
guy who plows his field with an ox.

When I was a youngster, there was a notion floating about that
intelligence was the criteria for who was "superior".  (It was a
thinly-veiled racist notion, reflecting the American view that blacks
were intellectually inferior.  I spotted the underlying racism and its
fallacy, which inevitably led to a question, "What ***IS*** a valid
basis for judging one person superior to another?  I'll let you all
assemble your own criteria, but it ain't intelligence or wealth.

The Western world is in full-throated Muslim-hating mode, with medias,
governments, and cultural groups all going at it pedal to the metal.
Can't blame anyone for getting caught up in that.  It's a human
failing, alas.  But the reality is the Muslim world is weak and
backward -- but no longer poor -- and has been on the defensive now,
defending itself against ***WESTERN AGGRESSIVENESS*** for a thousand
years.  Their militancy is defensive and justified.

Demonization is poor preparation for an accurate assessment of reality.

I've no beef with John Clark, he's excellent on scientific matters,
but on this particular social issue, well,... clearly we disagree.

I've spent too much time on this, so however clunky and disjointed it
may be, this is how I'm leaving it.

Best, Jeff Davis

I know it is a weakness of human nature to become
emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats,
but people who want to be transhumanists need to be
able to get past that almost as a prerequisite.  In fact,
a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are all about shedding this behavior.
                                           j. andrew rogers