10/15 It occured t'me dis mo'nin' dat treatin' honky chicks as equal t'men
has, so's far, been some poo' choice evolushunarily. Slap mah fro! Dis
suggests de practice gots'ta probably kick d' cud out eventually. Slap
mah fro!
\_ What do you mean? Fewer offspring? Fewer offspring may be the
only long-term viable evolutionary strategy due to environmental
limits.
\_ That's a salient point, but it requires that all societies agree
to limit reproduction. You may get two sets of societies, 'the
moral slow reproducers' and the 'immoral fast reproducers.' There
will still be an environmental catastrophe, but the fast
reproducers will have many more people than the slow reproducers.
The result is the fast reproducers wipe out the slow reproducers
in resource wars. There is historical precedence.
\_ Historical precedent is invalidated by technological
advantage. When the slow reproducers have a massive military
technological advantage due to not living at or below bare
subsistence, numbers won't matter.
\_ This assumes that the slow reproducers live in segregated
political states. In reality there are slow vs. fast within
each political entity, especially now with multicultural
immigrant states. Therefore in the long run we have the
same result.
Multicultural states are therefore bad for the species,
because they lead to global homogenizing of cultures.
Diversity decreases in favor of the fastest-growing
domininant subcultures, leaving the population as a
whole at greater risk.
\_ Or you can get mass die off of the fast reproducers, which
we will probably see in a generation or two. |