And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[CKay]

Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority.

Don't posit linear growth, or even mildly exponential growth.

In demographics a doubling every 20 years is neither linear nor mildly exponential growth. /shrug

[williatw]

being a non-white christian american male don't really have a dog in the fight.

So why bring it up?

Why not? I find it interesting, like the quality of the discourse here in general and like hearing what others think.

[CKay]

Islam is a meme. It spreads by reproduction AND by direct transfer.

Judging by the second generation Asians I know it doesn't seem to be all that good at reproducing.

[Diogenes]

Cognito ergo sum.

It's cogito ergo sum.

I always get that wrong because I keep thinking it is the root of cognitive. Most of the time I look up my foreign words and phrases to make sure i'm spelling them correctly, but I didn't bother in this case. You got me. I am wrong. You are correct.

And it's been pointed out that "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument and is thus not as indubitable as Descartes claimed.

I would suggest that as an expression of it's own existence it serves well as it's own proof. As Isaac Asimov (I think) said to the question "Do we exist?"

"Who's asking?"

Even if one is to accept it as true, it is far from clear how one would get from "cogito ergo sum" to a statement about morality.

If we exist, so does morality. My argument is that it's inherent, and just as people in the past had to learn the laws of physics, so will people have to eventually learn the laws of morality.

It is axiomatic that any morality which lessens chances for survival is a non-viable system from an evolutionary standpoint.

I would suggest that all the traditional bugaboos (Abortion, Homosexuality, Drugs, Promiscuity, etc.) fall into this category. The only reason they are so ascendent currently is only because humanity had achieved such a high degree of control over it's environment (Due to the stability created by following the Judeo-Christian system) that it is now possible to sustain anti-evolutionary anti-life systems for awhile, but these unnatural conditions will likely not last. The money (and tolerance) will eventually disappear.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Diogenes]

being a non-white christian american male don't really have a dog in the fight.

So why bring it up?

I'm confused. Where did he mention race? Last I checked, Islam is a religion, not a race. Yes, the majority of practitioners are Arabs, Persians, Indonesians, etc. but race is irrelevant to belief in Islam.


Ever hear of this guy?

[Diogenes]

Even were they exceptionally fecund and doubled their population every 20 years whilst the rest of the population remained static, it would take more than a century for them to become the majority.

Don't posit linear growth, or even mildly exponential growth.

In demographics a doubling every 20 years is neither linear nor mildly exponential growth. /shrug

My point is that you shouldn't assume it will grow slowly. Were it a potential threat to me, I would certainly be tracking it's growth and trying to warn people ( Or looking for someplace toward which to flee .... Don't come here! ) if it looked like it had a possibility of reaching a hysteresis point.

Fortunately, we have you Europeans to serve as our experimental guinea pigs regarding this issue.

[Diogenes]

Islam is a meme. It spreads by reproduction AND by direct transfer.

Judging by the second generation Asians I know it doesn't seem to be all that good at reproducing.

I would suggest that it has a critical mass. Britain has already had trouble dealing with militants in this regard. What mass is a critical mass is difficult to say. I'm unable to think of another similar example to what is happening except perhaps for Texas. But that was mostly unpopulated when the foreign interlopers (Americans) moved in and took it.


When in history past has another nation let their nation be taken from them by slow and steady encroachment which was encouraged by their own government?

[CKay]

And it's been pointed out that "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument and is thus not as indubitable as Descartes claimed.

I would suggest that as an expression of it's own existence it serves well as it's own proof. As Isaac Asimov (I think) said to the question "Do we exist?"

"Who's asking?"

Oh, I take my own existence as self evident. Not to say that to seriously consider the alternative would serve no purpose.

It is axiomatic that any morality which lessens chances for survival is a non-viable system from an evolutionary standpoint.

Hmm, yep - but the evolutionary viability of a system is not the same thing as the moral truth of that system.

[CKay]

Britain has already had trouble dealing with militants in this regard.

At least a couple of thousand years experience of dealing with them.

[CKay]

It is axiomatic that any morality which lessens chances for survival is a non-viable system from an evolutionary standpoint.

OTOH, if your argument is that the moral system that ensures its survival is the best moral system, then surely that makes the outcome you're suggesting here:

Islam is a meme. It spreads by reproduction AND by direct transfer. What this means is that at some point it will be big enough to swing elections, and at that point it will continuously vote the reins of government to aid in it's spread.

no bad thing?

[CKay]

Don't posit linear growth, or even mildly exponential growth.

In demographics a doubling every 20 years is neither linear nor mildly exponential growth. /shrug

My point is that you shouldn't assume it will grow slowly.

In the above example I assumed that it would grow extremely rapidly.

[williatw]

It is axiomatic that any morality which lessens chances for survival is a non-viable system from an evolutionary standpoint.

OTOH, if your argument is that the moral system that ensures its survival is the best moral system, then surely that makes the outcome you're suggesting here:

Islam is a meme. It spreads by reproduction AND by direct transfer. What this means is that at some point it will be big enough to swing elections, and at that point it will continuously vote the reins of government to aid in it's spread.

no bad thing?

Since muslim immigrants will increasingly inevitably start making up a disproportionally large percentage of the young of military age, wonder how long it will be before they start being a large minority of the militaries of european countries with large muslim immigrant populations? After all if secular native born European males have other opportunities and are not interested in military service, don't believe most of your countries have a draft, won't gov at some point have to start letting them in large number in? Sounds vaguely like late in the Roman Empire when they hired the barbarians to be their military because they were having trouble finding roman citizens who where interested.

[ladajo]

Why do you think all Muslim folks are Sharia folks? I would argue the opposite.

I would suggest that they don't have to be sharia. The Islamic meme is very powerful because it has little tolerance for deviation within it's system of influence. It is like a virus that copies itself well, and makes every effort to insure the accuracy of it's copy onto the next generation.

I can't wait to see them dealing with the militant atheists! I suspect they will be highly successful at imparting a fear of God into people who don't believe in one.

Your idea seems posited in Islam being united. It is far from, and never will be.

I also beg to differ about accuracy of copy. Each generation takes its own spin, and the spin can be more or less "rigid". I would also say that the hard over varieties are suffering from the modern world. There has been a dichonomy created between rigid fundamentalism and modern technology and communications. The root issue seems to be that folks are self discovering better things to do.
The growth areas for hard over types is centered in the "disaffected". Those who lack something better to do if you will. This is the same phenomena that brought forth "ghettoism" and inner city gangs. Ironically, the social model is also very similar to that of prison populations. In this it becomes a self licking ice-cream cone. Affiliation to anti-establishment promotes entry into the correctional system which further nutures the anti-establishment behaviors, and so on around the circle. The only self limiting feature about the cycle seems to be eventually the ice-cream licks itself out of existence. But, each ice-cream is one unto itself...

[choff]

One of the stories I've heard out of Britian is that the moderate muslims have been reporting the radicals to the authorities right from the get go, but the moderates all say the government does nothing in response.

The conclusion drawn is that the British government is deliberately allowing the radical islamists to plot trouble as agent provocateurs, the better to justify the coming police state.

[williatw]

Britain has already had trouble dealing with militants in this regard.

At least a couple of thousand years experience of dealing with them.

My guess is your best area for push back against the radical muslim world view would be muslim women. Easy for a muslim male Iman to say "more babies, more babies in Xyears we will own them." But it is women who have to have those 6 babies(or more) each. Their the ones who go through the Cesareans, breech births etc. damaging/aging the body. In the "old country" they can overwhelm them with concensus thinking that this is the only way the Koran says so. But in secular europe they will be aware of women who have 1-2 kids each(or none), work, get divorced from abusive spouses etc. They will be exposed to these ideas that a woman has a right to control her own body. Doubt if even the muslim brotherhood in Egypt expects that women will vote them in to take their vote away(I hope).