tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1764328218611568829.post1677516914031387451..comments2024-03-13T19:49:05.520-07:00Comments on The Adventures of Shylock Holmes: On the Pathology of Low BirthratesShylock Holmeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00446165270035271752noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1764328218611568829.post-80490172562669745202017-05-01T15:01:35.846-07:002017-05-01T15:01:35.846-07:00Thanks for the links, those are awesome. I really ...Thanks for the links, those are awesome. I really need to read more on the quantitative estimates of this stuff - I felt somewhat embarrassed to be lumped in implicitly with Khan's description of there being lots of hand-wavy general arguments without magnitudes. :)<br /><br />Khan's point about the hazards of extrapolating country-level birthrates when there are different sub-groups within the country seems especially on point. Sooner or later the country ends up being the sub-group that does keep breeding, and then the aggregate trend reverses. Fecundity - though you toss it out with a pitchfork, yet it returns.Shylock Holmeshttp://shylockholmes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1764328218611568829.post-34023702225342190322017-05-01T11:03:28.937-07:002017-05-01T11:03:28.937-07:00It's true - this is like in the organisational...It's true - this is like in the organisational form, money and people can be partially transformed into each other. Ideas associated with money probably have a better chance of succeeding too. In that case, progressivism scores well on one metric, but disastrously on the other. I still think it's hard to see it as anything other than pathological.<br /><br />I think part of what's interesting is to take the Dawkins idea and think of the ideas themselves as the entities being propagated, and the people as hosts. In that sense, you begin to see the idea itself as having biological effects, like if it were an actual parasite.Shylock Holmeshttp://shylockholmes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1764328218611568829.post-87934337389073068832017-05-01T07:57:54.590-07:002017-05-01T07:57:54.590-07:00Any DNA-carrying entity triumphs in the endless ga...Any DNA-carrying entity triumphs in the endless game of evolution either by reproducing more successfully than its rivals, or by extirpating its rivals. You want your people to be fecund, but also to be strong. The future belongs to those who show up, but there are sundry methods to prevent your rivals from showing up. That's the alpha and the omega of any biological struggle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1764328218611568829.post-48342653974906785932017-05-01T03:07:00.801-07:002017-05-01T03:07:00.801-07:00"Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demo..."Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century" by Eric Kaufmann seems relevant to your concerns.<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448<br /><br />Kaufmann has a few more papers since 2010 on religious demography and also co-edited the book "Whither the Child?: Causes and Consequences of Low Fertility" with W. Bradford Wilcox:<br />https://www.amazon.com/Whither-Child-Causes-Consequences-Fertility/dp/1612050948<br /><br />Razib Khan did a long review of it: http://archive.is/gkh2N<br /><br />Khan also reviewed a paper that formalized some of Kaufmann's insights:<br />http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-inevitable-rise-of-amish-machines/<br />http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/01/07/rspb.2010.2504.fulldknoreply@blogger.com