OK, so this blog wasn’t random enough. Let’s delve into social philosophy today. (-:
Thanks, Greg Black, for pointing out a Danna Vale’s statement about Australia eventually becoming Islamified through breeding.
White Australia has already been Catholicised by this exact same process (the largely-Catholic convicts outbred their largely-Protestant keepers), and the Aboriginal population has become so dilute that many “Aboriginals” are whiter than I (and often very confused about who they are, or should be).
However, I think Danna’s solution would fail even in the unlikely event that it gets to be implemented, because those 100,000 annual infanticides are children who are not wanted. They are more a symptom of the “give me convenience or give me death” attitude which is slowly destroying our society than they are a direct cause of it (although there is that as well).
Ironically, giving us convenience here means giving us death too.
The next question to ask is: does Australia becoming Islamic represent a problem?
The answer is an unqualified yes. Islam is a one-way trip; in many Islamic countries the price for attempting to convert (to Christianity, Atheism or name it) is death, and if Greg thinks Christians running things is a problem, he’s got a rude shock coming.
The problem, as with Christianity, does not lie in the religion itself, but in the political organisations hiding behind it. The branch of Christianity which gives most other people a problem overall is Roman Catholicism, because they are the most politicised. Coming up fast on the inside is a loose group of limited Catholicity known as “The Christian Right” whose very existence is a reaction to raw Catholicism.
In all of these cases, a very small number of radical politicians at or near the top of the political heap (and often social: Osama bin Laden is filthy rich) are pushing around a large number of moderate, reasonable people who otherwise wouldn’t much care about the issues if they weren’t tied to the radicals by their religious beliefs.
If Australia’s population obtains an Islamic majority, it will be their duty to elect officials who will switch Australia to Islamic Law (Sharia); the only way to undo that will be violent revolution. Even moderate, friendly followers of Islam (including some of my personal friends) will be leveraged into supporting these things.
The only alternative to submission or revolution is to not let it happen in the first place.
The bottom line as I see it is that Danna’s fears are well-founded, but her solution (restrict RU486) is almost tangential and unlikely to be effective. The only solution which can work, long-term, is for people to rediscover each others’ value. Babies shouldn’t be throwaways, but the only reason someone of Paul Zachary Myers’ loudly-trumpeted convictions has to value children is as a potential source of retirement support — evidently something he’s not in need of. It’s all very well talking about evolutionary morality, but if what we currently have is it, it ain’t working for us.
I don’t believe that what we have really is evolutionary morality, since evolutionary pressures are aimed at the species level, and the morality outlined above is very individualistic (or, put more bluntly, selfish). Perhaps the species has a self-protection mechanism for driving such species-hostile individualism out of the gene pool.
Perhaps that mechanism is manifesting on one hand as Islam?
Perhaps that mechanism is manifesting on the other hand as a society unwilling to have (or keep) its children?
Perhaps — on the gripping hand — that mechanism has produced more-or-less-Christians with about the right balance of altruism (procreation other than as retirement insurance) against selfishness (limiting procreation in order to have more personal resources), and we need immediate mundane (as opposed to divine) intervention to wipe out all of Islam and Atheism before they populate us into the ground or wither us all on the vine?
Perhaps Paul and Greg simply don’t have enough faith in the principles they espouse? Or perhaps being in the allotment marked “extinction” wasn’t part of the plan? (-:
One last thing: Greg, you recommend Paul’s blog “to all intelligent readers”... but perhaps you didn’t think that through. If you regard Paul’s constant stream of vitriolic abuse (with just a twist of data) as a manifestation of intelligence, don’t you really want to recommend him “to all unintelligent readers” in the hope of bringing them to enlightenment?
Or is that not what the recommendation is for?
Comments