Tendo City

Did anyone see that article, I think it was on CNN.COM, that referenced Turkey? I believe it had "Young Turks," in the header, and it described how western Turkey, "Kemalian" Turkey, the Turkey of Kemal Ataturk, was the pro-Western, pro-Democracy, pro-Secularism... whereas rural Eastern Turkey was the pro-Islamism, bumpkin half.

At any rate, as I know that you all follow world events, you'll know as I do that Turkey is moving further to the right. It is finding more in common with its fellow Islamic countries than it is with its fellow NATO countries.

What I want to say, is that the article called into question a very realistic trend that I have recognized before but never been able to scientifically verify.

The article said that Turkey was moving further to the Islamic right because, the Anatolian Turks (i.e., the rural, backwards, Islamic ones) are out-breeding and out-populating the city-dwelling, secular, western Kemalian Turks. This obviously means that Turkey is sliding backwards in time to it's Ottoman-era state, simply because the majority of the population that is growing the fastest is this naive pro-Islamic population base---the same base that elected this new leader who is suddenly so adamantly anti-Israel.

My point in this article isn't to bring to light this political topic, it's to bring to light the population trend.

Why is it that more-developed, intellectual, intelligent, refined and civilized peoples stop breeding? Whereas, to be frank, dumber, more rural, primitive ones seem to out-breed them?

We know that the native populations in Europe are stagnant and that they are being out-bred at home by immigrants... chiefly Islamic immigrants. And here in the US, while our situation is not so dire as France's or Italy's, we are being outbred and replaced by a nation of Hispanics.

Turkey provides a perfect microcosm for this, because in this case we have both halves of the puzzle in one country.

Why is it that more advanced and intellectual peoples are not prolific breeders? Why are the Kenyans and the Ethiopians and the Anatolian Turks outbreeding the English and the Italians and the Kemalist Turks?

You may cite this as all paranoia and coincidence but I see this as a very realistic trend in human biology. And at the risk of sounding a racist, I find it frightening as a caucasian.

Quote:Why is it that more-developed, intellectual, intelligent, refined and civilized peoples stop breeding? Whereas, to be frank, dumber, more rural, primitive ones seem to out-breed them?

Religious people practice withering. Also, Muslims have multiple wives whom they can knock up. Here in the west, people use condoms and birth control, and if that doesn't work, they abort their children.

Birth rates correlate very well to standards of living. Those of us in civilized countries are accustomed to a high standard of living. We therefore use contraceptives and birth control, because we don't need three dozen offspring.

Backwards people breed like rabbits because that's part of our biological programming, and in some cases, those in the boonies of the world don't have the desire or ability to overcome it.

The more subjugated the women are, The higher their birth rate will be.

In Iran, Women can work and enroll in school and college, Their birthrate is about 3 kids per household they still are patriarchal and a religious society but they are moderate about woman's rights.

In saudi arabia or Yemen, Women cannot drive and cannot leave their residence without being accompanied by a male relative, legally they are almost children under the law , They tend to have 6-8 kids per household.

In those societies, There is a great pressure to have children, The idea that a fertile couple would choose not to have kids is unthinkable in those cultures, Infertile couples are looked down in those societies.

In turkey , They 90% sunni , As I have long said the more diverse in religion a country is the stronger its secular foundation will be.

The problem with kemalism, Is that it is very Bonapartist and Degaullish in many respects,It has a french style Lèse majesté law that criminalizes any "insult or attack on the honor of the Turkish republics founding father a crime warranting a 3 year prison term", Then you have state enforced secular dress codes prohibiting the hijab turban and Fez cap in public, Bowing towards mecca outside of a mosque or the confines of your house is also a crime on par with "J-walking" and "littering",They also blocked Youtube because people were uploading disparaging videos about Ataturk.

Then there is the anti secularists islamist who consider any Muslim who is pro-secular as a apostate, They also believe that Ataturk was a alcoholic Jewish free mason......

The move to right aside from all other mitigating factors, Is also clearly because of the sudden return of popular anti Islamic sentiment in the west as of the new millennia .

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0O7_3o3BrI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0O7_3o3BrI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Doesn't this all have a similar tone to survival of the fittest? White and civilized peoples are so decadent and self-ingratiating, that they are no longer fit to rule the world that they once dominated. Look at Britain for a prime example: from #1 super power in the 30's to... what? Whiny socialist nobody.

I can't help but look around myself and see signs that lead me to conclude, unsettlingly, that survival of the fittest is still a very real phenomenon amongst the different social groups in the world, and the balance is shifting greatly against the WASP power structure of old. In a century, the Mediterranean will be a Muslim lake. American will be Los Estados Unidos.

The West is a frail, withered, impotent old fuddy duddy.

Quote:Why is it that more advanced and intellectual peoples are not prolific breeders?

People either have children because they have no other choice -- they have no access to birth control or education, so they do not know better -- or because they want to and think it makes economic sense. First world countries all fall into the latter category, which means lower birthrates. That is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of people on this planet already, do we really need lots more? Replacement is the highest we should really want to be aiming for really, I think... and a bit below that would not really be a bad thing, for a while, probably... but yes, there are issues that need to be solved. Some countries are doing much better than others at solving them, certainly. The US is one of the ones doing better, incidentally.

If you think that those countries with the really high birthrates are benefiting from it, you're very much wrong... to a point it makes sense, because small farmers and such need more children (to help do the work), but now that so many fewer people die thanks to better medicine (one of the big reasons people needed lots of children, some of them would die), the extremely high birthrates in some countries are causing massive population explosions that are causing a lot of problems. The countries with the least-under-control population size increases have big problems that will get much, much worse over the coming century as global warming gets worse and worse...

For instance, India vs. China. China got its population under control via cruel means; India has a massive population problem. Which one will be better off in a few decades? Wouldn't surprise me if it's China...

Yes, many first world countries have birthrates that are too low, but it is not universal. Some have better ones than others. I've talked about that many times before, and said some of the things that can be done to improve it -- improve womens' pay, improve access for women to better jobs, improve womens' education (this is a HUGE one, particularly for third world countries - makes a massive, massive difference), more birth control (the Catholic Church, among others, is a huge problem here), more funding for social programs such as longer paid time off after having a child (for both parents), make it so that society doesn't have a problem with unwed mothers (America has not done many of the above things, but we have done this, and it's important), make it so that married women, and mothers, are not socially persecuted for working or expected to not work after getting married and having children (this expectation is still a huge problem in some first world countries -- but not in the US or many of the other ones with higher birthrates), etc... some conservatives think that womens' rights caused the problem, but while that is superficially true, as it becomes obvious when you compare Scandinavia (1.7-1.8 or so birthrate, below replacement but not bad) to Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, etc - 1.3-1.4 birthrates, HUGE PROBLEM) or Japan (1.2, the world's lowest), one thing that stands out is that women have much better status, more rights, and more social programs for their support in Scandinavia than in Southern Europe.

Quote:Why is it that more-developed, intellectual, intelligent, refined and civilized peoples stop breeding? Whereas, to be frank, dumber, more rural, primitive ones seem to out-breed them?

We know that the native populations in Europe are stagnant and that they are being out-bred at home by immigrants... chiefly Islamic immigrants. And here in the US, while our situation is not so dire as France's or Italy's, we are being outbred and replaced by a nation of Hispanics.

This kind of anti-Hispanic racism is one of the things wrong with America today. Absolutely horrible. Hispanics are Western, they adapt to our culture over time just like every other group has, they do not have an anti-American agenda, etc... that conservatives actually believe this stuff is ridiculous.

That is -- yes, recent immigrants have a higher birthrate. But worldwide, what happens over time? As people stay in a country longer, their cultural views, and birthrates, gradually fall towards the norm of the country they are in. This is absolutely true with immigrants to the US.

I do agree that Islamic immigrants, particularly in Europe, are more of a problem, because of how common anti-female, anti-democratic, anti-Enlightenment views are among them, as I've said, but that is a completely different problem. As for them and population size due to birthrate, though, we'll see. Who knows what will happen.

Worrying about the theme from a comedy movie actually coming to pass is a waste of time. Overpopulation is bad enough without adding on extra worries about "de-evolution". Fortunately it seems that something as simple as education, pregnancy preventative deviceeeeees, and raising the level of the bottom-most rungs of society does wonders to solve that.

Though yes, sometimes it does seem like idiots only manage to reproduce as the result of two people not knowing how to fix their car and trying random stuff.