[extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2

Keith Henson hkhenson at rogers.com
Sun Oct 1 04:01:09 UTC 2006

At 11:49 PM 9/30/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>On 9/30/06, Keith Henson wrote:
> > And the *most important* element is to reduce the birth rate to below the
> > growth of the economy.  That's what happened in Northern Ireland and I make
> > the case it is the reason for the IRA going out of business.
> >
>I think you have a general claim that has a lot of substance.
>I'm just a bit worried that using Northern Ireland as your main
>example may weaken your case, as many objections can be raised against
>that specific example. And if someone produces strong arguments
>against NI, your more general claim may be weakened.

A similar terror campaign that burned out in roughly the same time frame is 
the Basque.  Anyone have income and birth rate data for that group?  While 
I think birth rate was the substantial factor, oil income for the UK which 
increased the income per capita, could have also contributed to the general 
brightening of future prospects and (according to the model) that ration is 
the key to terror or war support.

>NI is one economy containing two intermingled warring groups.
>Not two competing economies / nations. I think your claim would be
>better demonstrated by using nations as examples. e.g. Germany and
>(I don't know if this is a good example. I'll leave that up to you).  :)
>The NI birth rate peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000, then fell
>fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when it was 13.9 /
>1000. This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for
>the UK as a whole.
>i.e. the troubles didn't cause the fall in the birth rate.

I agree, the causal arrow in the model goes the other way, the falling 
birth rate increased income per capita, which made the future seem 
brighter, which reduced the support for wars and related such as terrorism

>The fall
>was caused by being part of a modern European state, as all European
>birth rates were falling during that period.

The matter of total mystery to me is *why.*  I don't have the least idea of 
why women would restrict family size at the times they did.  Any ideas 
would be appreciated.

>And the fighting was only
>in NI, not in the UK and other European states.

True.  But the IRA supporters in the time frame when they were most active 
were (in theory) looking at a bleak future, more so than other places in 
the UK or other European states.  As you mention discrimination is a big 
factor in feeling you have a bleak future.

>I could make more suggestions about why the troubles have reduced, but
>I doubt it really matters for the purposes of this argument. Some
>claim the IRA is still there. It has just switched away from bombing
>to more gangster-like criminal activities. And they are making a very
>nice living from these activities, as their armoury tends to
>discourage the civil police from investigating too closely. Political
>changes may have stopped the Catholic IRA supporters from feeling as
>persecuted as they used to be. It is a very complex situation, with no
>neat 'sound-bite' solutions. Everyone is really holding their breath
>and keeping their fingers crossed over there.

I am sure they are.  But the model predicts that as long as the future 
prospects are good, the IRA or some other terrorist organization will not 
get popular support.

Keith Henson

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list