Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

A lecture describing demographic trends against secular liberals. In short, pretty much all fundamentalist, orthodox and evangelical groups around the world are vastly out breeding liberals. In some countries like Israel, orthodox Jews will soon be a majority. Liberals by default are committing genetic suicide by abstaining from having children. The greatest possible weapon against a liberal, is having children. I see the trends here as good news for us, as religious folks are thee closest mainstream contingent to a working coalpha model.

One of the many things that liberals seem blind to is the fact that they need to reproduce, and that they can't just co-opt reproducing people with their ideas to further their ideology. But since liberalism is ensconced with feminism and anti-natalism, as well as unrestricted low-IQ immigration, they will self-destruct.

I really don't understand it. Most liberals are intelligent, right? What is there not to understand about replacement rates? A lot of them seem to not care about their progeny or where the world is going. I think this is the result of being too insulated and entertained.

It sucks for the rest of us who have to have this dogma shoved down our throats.

I wonder if we should remove "but we do not want to be tied to a specific religion" from our mission statement.  If we find a compatible religion, it might make sense to work with it.

Scorpius wrote

I really don't understand it. Most liberals are intelligent, right?

Most people aren't intelligent in any group.  Liberalism is basically a religion itself.  Religions evolve as memes.  The liberal meme is clearly an evolutionary dead end.

:Scratch scratch:
[ Being intellectual just for the heck of it ]

Could it just be a byproduct of the extreme investment humans put into their kids? AKA Its better to have one kid and invest a lot in him/her so he/she is successful (and therefore goes on to make up for it by having more than 2 kids of his/her own etc) rather than have 2/2+ kids with lower investment in each.

Such a strategy would make some sense for the very rich, and liberalism seems to pop up whenever nations get very rich. So, in effect, its a mistake on a large scale that would makes sense on an individual level.

[/ End being intellectual just for the heck of it ]

Strongly encourage one religion but maybe not discriminate? I dunno.

Birth Rate Categories:

0 = Genetic suicide.
1 = Below replacement.
2 = Replacement.
2+ = Above replacement.

I've calculated out the cost of having kids. Western society seems to have created a cost structure that makes "0" or "1" children the only affordable options for most average people. In order to have "2" or "2+" children with a modest quality of life you either need to have an above average income, have dual incomes (both parents work), work multiple job (by a single parent) and or cheat the system (welfare, food stamps, ect). The vast majority of people I see with "2+" are just cheating the system. They breed well beyond what they can afford. This in turn creates an environment that gives incentive to a dishonest reproductive strategy. As anyone whom has children within their means (honest reproductive strategy) will be out bred.

This has left me with a riddle. Hasidic Jews work low paying jobs yet fall into the "2+" category, often having as many as five children. Some Hasidics don't work at all, because they don't have time with all their Torah studying. Hasidics compensate for this by having their wives work part time. Mormons face a similar crises.

Haven't the religious pretty much ruled the world in terms of population always? Western nations make it pretty hard to have children without it being a burden. There is also the problem of the earth's natural carrying capacity, which has been temporarily done away with by cheap and abundant hydro-carbons. Once that comes to an end, nature will be sorting us out unfortunately.

As far as us, we would probably do much better by taking on an already long-established religion, but what about creating our own religion?

Humanity wrote

Western nations make it pretty hard to have children without it being a burden.

Yes, western society is hateful to children and diabolically Malthusian. On top of that, with all the safety nets that an honest man has to pay into, which he'll never use, he's left with no money of his own to start his own family.

Humanity wrote

As far as us, we would probably do much better by taking on an already long-established religion, but what about creating our own religion?

Do you mean creating an original religion, a la scientology? Or an offshoot of an established one with a coalpha angle? The obvious reasons against creating our own religion would be man-power shortage, hence the reason I think fschmidt is looking into local churches and considering alignment with a religion. And the fact that a religion needs true believers to be a religion. Without true believers it'd just be a secular social club.

Absolutely, and that is a defining characteristic of an insane society: robbing from the worthwhile and giving it to scum. Paying into all the "safety nets," such high taxes, not to mention huge unemployment now. Many worthwhile men are getting shut-out of a decent future, while the undeserving reap the rewards. And a sad fact of human nature is that when those who can't provide are given resources (as opposed to earning or working for them) they will start reproducing anyway, even though it is insane to do so. The only upside I see is that such an unjust system must, by design, collapse under the weight of its own foolishness.

As far as the religion goes, I meant making up an entirely new one. That would allow us the utmost control over values within the religion, but leaves us vulnerable in pretty much every other way. Joining a pre-existing religion gives plenty of advantages. I think, realistically speaking, we would need to join an already existing religion in order to thrive.