“the resulting world will be a global (2) melting pot ruled by suffering-maximizing Shariah law.”
This seems extremely implausible to me. Historically, assimilation and globalization has been the norm. Also, Shariah isn’t even implemented in many Islamic countries, why would it be implemented in e.g. 2050 Britain?
“That’s a worse existential risk than pandemics or climate change; in fact it would be worse than human extinction.”
Hell no! Standards of living even in Saudi Arabia are probably better than they’ve been in most places for most of human history, and things are only going to get better.
On a more abstract level: It really seems like you are exaggerating the danger here. Since the danger is a particular culture/religious group, that’s especially insensitive & harmful.
You might say “I agree that the odds of this nightmare scenario happening are very small, but because the scenario is so bad, I think we should still be concerned about it.” I think that when we start considering odds <1% of sweeping cultural change, then we ought to worry about all sorts of other contenders in that category too. Communism could revive. A new, fiery religion could appear. World War Three could happen. So many things which would be worse, and more likely, then the scenario you are considering.
This seems extremely implausible to me. Historically, assimilation and globalization has been the norm.
“Assimilation and globalization” doesn’t imply a particular direction of value drift. It’s Eurocentric to assume that cultural assimilation always means non-European cultures assimilating in to European ones.
The word “imperialist” is typically used in conjunction with European empires, but the majority of historical empires were not European, and Europe has been a backwater throughout much of history. In particular, Islam already has a storied history of assimilating other cultures.
(I upvoted Carla_Fin’s comments back up towards 0 because I thought they explored important conceptual territory, even if they were expressed indelicately. It seems to me that if EA chooses to neglect particular lines of argument because pursuing them makes you seem like a mean person, that will be a failure mode for EA as a movement. As a reductio ad absurdum, how much potential do you think the EA movement would have if we weren’t willing to point out that PlayPumps is an ineffective charity, in order to avoid being insensitive to the founders of PlayPumps? Of course we should prevent the forum from devolving in to fruitless flame warring, and I move we all work to be especially collegial when discussing touchy topics.)
I’m sure the people whose skin is whipped to bloody shreds are very happy that their tormentors enjoy a high GDP.
A new, fiery religion could appear.
Most religions have historical roots, which are culturally perpetuated. Perhaps new cults can emerge, one might also fear the risk of new brainwashing technology. But why speculate about new religious fundamentalism when the old ones are alive and kicking?
odds <1% of sweeping cultural change
No one said anything about odds this low. They are far higher.
P.S.: A big fuck you to the people who downvoted my comment below visibility AFTER I pointed out the danger of stifling criticism in the name of PC; people like you are the reason why those girls in Rotherham could get raped without their molestors having to fear punishment.
“the resulting world will be a global (2) melting pot ruled by suffering-maximizing Shariah law.”
This seems extremely implausible to me. Historically, assimilation and globalization has been the norm. Also, Shariah isn’t even implemented in many Islamic countries, why would it be implemented in e.g. 2050 Britain?
“That’s a worse existential risk than pandemics or climate change; in fact it would be worse than human extinction.”
Hell no! Standards of living even in Saudi Arabia are probably better than they’ve been in most places for most of human history, and things are only going to get better.
On a more abstract level: It really seems like you are exaggerating the danger here. Since the danger is a particular culture/religious group, that’s especially insensitive & harmful.
You might say “I agree that the odds of this nightmare scenario happening are very small, but because the scenario is so bad, I think we should still be concerned about it.” I think that when we start considering odds <1% of sweeping cultural change, then we ought to worry about all sorts of other contenders in that category too. Communism could revive. A new, fiery religion could appear. World War Three could happen. So many things which would be worse, and more likely, then the scenario you are considering.
“Assimilation and globalization” doesn’t imply a particular direction of value drift. It’s Eurocentric to assume that cultural assimilation always means non-European cultures assimilating in to European ones.
The word “imperialist” is typically used in conjunction with European empires, but the majority of historical empires were not European, and Europe has been a backwater throughout much of history. In particular, Islam already has a storied history of assimilating other cultures.
(I upvoted Carla_Fin’s comments back up towards 0 because I thought they explored important conceptual territory, even if they were expressed indelicately. It seems to me that if EA chooses to neglect particular lines of argument because pursuing them makes you seem like a mean person, that will be a failure mode for EA as a movement. As a reductio ad absurdum, how much potential do you think the EA movement would have if we weren’t willing to point out that PlayPumps is an ineffective charity, in order to avoid being insensitive to the founders of PlayPumps? Of course we should prevent the forum from devolving in to fruitless flame warring, and I move we all work to be especially collegial when discussing touchy topics.)
I’m sure the people whose skin is whipped to bloody shreds are very happy that their tormentors enjoy a high GDP.
Most religions have historical roots, which are culturally perpetuated. Perhaps new cults can emerge, one might also fear the risk of new brainwashing technology. But why speculate about new religious fundamentalism when the old ones are alive and kicking?
No one said anything about odds this low. They are far higher.
P.S.: A big fuck you to the people who downvoted my comment below visibility AFTER I pointed out the danger of stifling criticism in the name of PC; people like you are the reason why those girls in Rotherham could get raped without their molestors having to fear punishment.