Saturday assorted links


#1 is a truly excellent link.

Yes. Sometimes, to end or significantly reduce strife, there must be a winner. After the Glorious Revolution it was the Protestants.

Exaclty. I would bet my left nut those numbers are not at all acurate.

The decrease of Hinduism is taken up by an increase in what? Islam, Christianity, Secularism, or all three? If the decrease in Hinduism in India was caused by emigration than why is that so bad? Hindu-Americans are at the top for prosperity in their new homelands.

The decrease in Hinduism is mostly taken up by an increase in Islam - atheists exist, but in these stats they were probably all counted as Hindu anyway. Any other religion than Islam to make up for the decrease, and things would have been far milder.

And the decrease is not due to emigration or murder, just differential fertility. Hindu fertility has likely dropped below replacement level by now, while Muslim fertility is still well above the replacement level.

Liberals of course insist that there aren't any fat tails to the thus-far-relatively-slow population change (disproved by Kerala's ongoing demographic reversal), and that even if India becomes Muslim majority it will remain secular democratic provided we now do everything as liberals like. Hindutva people of course don't believe that at all.

If Hinduism wants to grow in the future, they should make the faith more appealing to young people. If anything, Hindutva make people want to leave the faith since nobody wants to be around salty losers. At least Muslims let you eat a nice juice steak.

I think a lot of the angst comes not from the fact that Hinduism isn't growing (if that is the case) but that the Abrahamic religions are (either through conversion or higher birthrates), and that their newer adherents are former Hindus.

Adoption of an Abrahamic religion has never been strictly a personal matter in India. Political power has had a lot to do with it, because our ruling class for the past 1000 years (until 1947) was mostly Muslim, and then Christian.

I can't speak for other Hindutvavadis, but personally I wouldn't mind if India becomes kind of like Korea in the sense of Christian dominance (this is unlikely, but I wouldn't mind if this happens); the Korean Christians let the Buddhists there live peacefully. I don't grudge anyone a chance to be numerically dominant based on who ruled in the past. However, I am not confident there is a single Islamic country where the minorities can flourish, and this makes me wary of demographic tides turning in favor of that particular religion.

And this is not because Muslims are evil or any such thing: after all most Pakistanis are nice people, and yet as a country they allow marginalization of minorities to the point that the Kalash religion isn't going to survive for much longer. It so happens that voting priorities in Muslim societies that are harmless each at an individual level (why should a particular individual prioritize dismantling of terror infrastructure over issues that are closer to her daily bread?) sum up societally to something obnoxious.

There is a huge difference between individual and group behavior; a statement that Muslims are nicer individuals than Hindus is logically consistent with the statement that as a group Muslims are more intolerant than Hindus. But individualism-obsessed western/westernized morons like those sagaciously flourishing Econ 101 slogans cannot understand such simple distinctions.

(My last sentence was not aimed at you; sorry if it gave that impression).

Isn't it very hard for Hinduism to grow, though? It's not an evangelical religion, and heavily emphasizes tolerance and diversity of practice and worship. It looks that the further a society gets from Hinduism's place of origin, the Indian subcontinent, the sharper the drop in Hindu adherents over time. In order for Hinduism to appeal to people, the society may need to be predominantly (75 or even 80% plus) Hindu, unlike Islam, Judaism, or more traditional forms of Christianity, monotheistic religions which function well among small segments of the population.

You reckon the Hindu minorities in SE Asia and the West Indies are losing adherents over time? Any quicker than Judaism, St Thomas Christians, etc. Doesn't seem like that.

What's the situation with the Sikhs? Though always a small minority, they've tended to pinch above their size for a long time.
Also, today's fertility number can't be extrapokqyed into the future with the assumption they won't change. They almost certainly will.

Herr Grill made some valid points, but we should not forget that China's expansionism is, above anything else, a product of America's dereliction of duty. We could be doing much be much more to contain Red China and help democracies to resist Red Chinese aggression.
America, throught its local piece mouths, promised President Captain's Bolsonaro billions of dollars to help it resist Chinese aggression. Not a cent has been seen as yet. It hurts America's credibility. Who will trust a partner who can't be trusted?

6. China expanding its media presence in Africa.
All ten thousand written characters?

#5 How can Amazon be so out of touch of human nature to think of a delivery robot on streets? Of course any robot like that will be immediately stolen for its content and disposed.

Still client capture tho' : "Thank you for stealing our robot, can we interest you in this latest offer from Amazon"

1. Yes, it's like white nationalism in America: as the Hindu/white population declines as a percentage of the total population, Hindu/white nationalism rises.

The problem is they fucked up and lost the WWC before they had imported enough scabs. Meaning that this ends in civil war.

They weren’t able to demoralize whites like they did in Rhodesia and South Africa. And nothing is more terrifying than a white guy with his back to the wall. You gon get fucked up.

They think the won their culture wars and now are running around figuratively shooting the wounded.

Das dicke Ende kommt noch.


Interesting answers. The only alternative to white nationalism is some other color of nationalism?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

you cannot have a storm over a puppet show! you can't even look for pearl. Once can have nothing except a hangdog face. I will give you six pence for your Ostrich Feathers.

4. Confusing review. Hughes doesn't trust the military, in which he served, because the military commits atrocities that, due to the insularity of the military, are never exposed. Big business, on the other hand, rarely commits such atrocities because big business is for the most part transparent and its transgressions are exposed; hence, the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Unlike the individual, like the painter of Hughes' house, who wants to be paid in cash so he can commit tax fraud that nobody will ever see.

Hughes doesn't mention Boeing, which sold a defectively designed aircraft that only killed a few hundred people before the public outcry became so great that the aircraft was grounded. Yes, Boeing sold an aircraft Boeing knew was defectively designed. What's the proof? Boeing had to install a sensor that converted the aircraft into a self driving aircraft because the engines were installed in a place on the wings that created a significant risk of stall. Why did Boeing do that? Because the safe alternative was an entirely different aircraft, one much higher off the ground to complement the much larger, more fuel efficient engines. But that would have cost both money and time, so Boeing chose the risky, cheaper route, and didn't bother to mention it to its customers or the pilots. Volswaken's transgression may have polluted the air and defrauded purchasers of its diesel powered cars, but Boeing's transgression killed hundreds of people and endangered thousands. Do you trust Boeing, the largest (and only) builder of airliners in America?

Commander Hughes should run for President. Hell, John F. Kerry did.

Talking about atrocities in a war is like talking about speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

FYI: The current rules of engagement are atrocities against our troops.

"Do you trust Boeing, the largest (and only) builder of airliners in America?"

Much more than anyone should trust your armchair commentary on aircraft design.

#2: When museums several years ago started showing those exhibits of plastinated bodies, some observers claimed that the bodies were acquired illicitly, with executed Chinese prisoners being a rumored source. But this article suggests there's no need to go to such an exotic source, there's a wild and wooly market already.

If you don't like plastic, maybe you'll like lye: Oregon is one of the few states that has legalized "aqua cremation" -- the body is dissolved in a strong alkaline solution -- and now has a mortuary that offers the service.

1. Why is the percentage of Hindus in South Asia decreasing? Is it because of non-Hindu immigration? Mass conversion of Hindus to other religions? Higher mortality among Hindus due to poverty and violence? I doubt it. My guess is that the non-Hindu share of population is rising mostly because fertility among Hindus is lower than non-Hindus, which would be due to Hindus being on average better off economically and therefore further down the demographic transition. It’s the same reason the percentage of non-Han minorities in China has doubled over the last few decades—you never hear about Han nationalists complaining about that though. If I were a Hindu nationalist, I would be happy that my favored group enjoys higher living standards than other groups in the region.

Do you have any idea how China has been treating its Muslims recently? Did you read about Chinese crackdown on Christmas celebrations though Christians are hardly even a demographic threat to them?

I have literally never heard anyone argue that the increasing population of minorities in China is a demographic threat. The crackdown on Uighurs is justified on anti-terrorism grounds, not because of worries that Uighurs are a demographic threat. Feel free to share counterexamples if you have them though...

To be clear, I should say "The Chinese government justifies the crackdown on Uighurs on anti-terrorism ground." I do not mean to imply that I think the crackdown is justified--I do not think it is.

That you automatically assumed that I was talking of only the Uighurs and not the Hui, shows how clueless you are. Don't assume you are familiar with the arguments that happens in China - there are other reasons you don't hear much about that.

Secondly please try to develop a better sense of understanding. I don't want to dominate Muslims or anyone else. Try to understand, if you can, the kind of terror and desperation I experience, without prejudging based on your lack of fine knowledge as to what the circumstances that get me to say what I do are.

If I were a Hindu nationalist, I would be happy that my favored group enjoys higher living standards than other groups in the region.

And this is such a brilliant argument - what if my grandkids will be genocidally massacred 50 years hence, what matters is that I am able to buy better flat screen TVs today.

Your thinking is wrong. You already assume the worst. One can live life afraid of every potential disaster that might occur but that would be a cowardly existence.

His thinking is not only wrong but makes no sense. So make Hindus poorer so they can have more babies? Make Muslims richer so they will have less? Oh and make sure to feel guilty and apologize for owning a nice TV. Take your group identity and add the word 'nationalism' to it and watch your IQ drop at least 10 points.

So make Hindus poorer so they can have more babies?

You are hallucinating that I am proposing a particular solution, and then proceeding to attack based on that. No sir, I am stating the problem, and there is no solution I have to propose.

Stop being presumptive, and you might just realize that it is your IQ that has been precipitously plummeting.

Differential fertility largely tracks primary education and child mortality, not wealth or income (hence the demographic transition is only correlated with increases in consumption at a fairly low bound after which child mortality drops to a low rate).

So happily there is no need to make anyone richer or poorer if you want to equalize birth rates.

Who is threatened with being genocidally massacred? Are there any examples in history of a dominant group that was genocidally massacred as a result of gradual demographic change?

Here is a recent event from India:

This is not genocide-level, but changed demographics are relevant. There are many such stories.

Amusing that when my life is at stake, you put on your IYI hat and ask me to wait for proof that I will be murdered. If it happened in your back yard, you would realize better.

you're paranoid. now go see a psychiatrist!

Isn't that exactly what happened to native Americans?
When the first colonies were settled, British colons were certainly much less numerous than Indians in the territory that is US now. Then there was a huge natural growth among the British colon. It was, to be sure, complemented by new waves of immigration, but as is well-known,
the major cause of growth was natural. According to wikipedia ("demographic history of the US") : "All the colonies, after they were started, grew mostly by natural growth, with foreign born populations rarely exceeding 10% in isolated instances."

The Arab conquest of the Middle East and North Africa may be another example, though it is least clear, since the demographic history of this period is not at all well-known, and highly controversial. Are the Arabic-speaking population from Morocco to Iraq descendants of relatively few Arab invaders with higher fertility or of older local populations who changed their religion and language. Of course the answer is "somewhere in between", and the real question is to measure the relative importance of those two factors. Maybe recent progresses in historical genetic of human populations will settle this question.

Masd mortality among Natuce Anericans was due primarily to disease. Are there anyvolagues out there which would kill off one demographic in a major population, but not others?

What's your definition of "gradual" change here?

For example, on migration, the Anglo-Saxon "invasions", for example, probably happened with no more or less assent of the Celtic Britons, or with any more rapidity, than migration into the United States today. "Gradual" or "sudden"?

This answer comes down to the question of whether the speaker thinks it's too much (in which case it will be argued to be too sudden) or totally fine (in which case, it's just a piffling, low level of gradual change that's totally historically normal).

In general, if you have huge demographic increase of an incoming group, at the point when they can commit any massacres, they're unlikely to be anything other than described as "dominant", so you're looking for something which may not be found often.

The peoples making up the Inca and Aztec empires? It wasn't intentional, their population and their culture just collapsed in fits and starts as more and more Spaniards, Portuguese, and other Europeans (and Africans) appeared.

Also consider native Hawaiians and Australian Aborigines: significant portions of those respective communities exist only in small portions of blood quantum, where a person has a Hawaiian great-great-grandparent but is otherwise completely non-Hawaiian in cultural upbringing, appearance, naming, and the like. At that point they are just a genetic trace.

Then as far as intentional genocidal acts go, the Trail of Tears: eventually there were enough Anglo-Americans that the Cherokee tribes in Georgia and the South were politically and militarily impotent against the American government, and were told to get out.

Sean Patrick Hughes was really good in How I Met Your Wife

#1 1688 was not a *peaceful* revolution that settled the British religious wars. Ask anyone in Northern Ireland about the Battle of the Boyne...

"the British religious wars": which ones do you have in mind?

2. As long as they don't end up in my chicken nuggets.

#4...I take any criticisms about monopolies back, since, based upon the unending sources for reviews of Big Business, media outlets must be enormous.

4) "Many Americans are anti-business—especially young people, Bernie Sanders supporters, the media, ordinary (distrustful) citizens, and Trump supporters—because they have “negative misconceptions,” writes Cowen (Chair, Economics/George Mason Univ.; Stubborn Attachments: A Vision for a Society of Free, Prosperous, and Responsible Individuals, 2018, etc.). In viewing corporations as “apparently selfish, profit-maximizing, even sometimes corrupt entities,” writes the author, such critics underrate the benefits of American business, which “makes most of the stuff we enjoy and consume” and “gives most of us jobs.” Indeed, “we don’t love business enough.” A popular blogger ( and free-marketeer who admires Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, Cowen offers a highly accessible polemic touting the wonders of corporate America, which has “never been more productive, more tolerant, and more cooperative” and provides “a ray of normalcy and predictability” at a time of “weirdness” in government. He continues, “business helps carve out spaces for love, friendship, creativity, and human caring by producing the resources that make our lives not just tolerable but comfortable.” Beyond such praises, the author offers chapters on specific areas—“Are Businesses More Fraudulent than the Rest of Us?” “Are the Big Tech Companies Evil?” and “Crony Capitalism”—in which he dismisses concerns about business monopoly, political power, and fraud, insisting that “limitations of human nature” (not inherent flaws of capitalism) drive corporate behavior. “The propensity of business to commit fraud is essentially just an extension of the propensity of people to commit fraud,” he writes. Cowen makes some concessions to critics, noting the “problematic” invasion of privacy by tech giants like Google and Facebook and the “ripping off” of consumers by entire sectors of the corporate economy. But on the whole, business remains “one of the most beneficial and fundamental institutions in American life.”

A 2016 Gallup survey ranked big business as second only to Congress as the country’s least-trusted institution. This fawning book won’t change many minds" [SNIP]

Comments for this post are closed