The Kalash Tribe of Pakistan

[Throatpoker]

They have stunning eyes, very interesting genes and culture, especially since they're surrounded by Muslim fundamentalists.

I believe that they do have Greek ancestry in them, because Alexander founded many cities throughout that region.

[Leagon]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

I am not so sure that Japan will do so, owing to a certain degree of "health". The only problem may be the Western curse of forgetting to breed, which is a direct relation to globalization's awful influence on the economic power of Western and Western-esque nations.

I think that may be a natural occurrence as well. I wish I remembered the proper name for it, but creatures with shorter lives and less to offer have much, much more offspring, hoping that at least one will carry on their genes. They divide their attention and ability among all the offspring, resulting in horrible parenting for all, but possible success for one.

I don't think humans are any different. We naturally have smaller litters because we are large animals and have long lives, but I think economic factors come into play. Poor people have more kids, hoping that at least one will succeed and bring some value to the family name. The drawback is that each child gets less resources to work with.

Rich people are comfortable devoting their ample resources to one child and knowing the odds are stacked in his or her favor.

What Western civilization faces today is a two-pronged assault:

1. Economic. Globalization has impoverished the middle-class in all Western nations. Life is getting worse today than it was a half century beforehand. This must somehow be changed. I'd argue paleoconservative returns to nationalistic capitalist systems, with higher tariffs, a focus on good jobs and such, et cetera.

I'm of the opinion that the best answer is always forward, so I think Socialism is the next step, but I could see an argument for a return to the Capitalism that built us.

2. Ideological. Feminism is a big civilization-destroyer, as is many other doctrines and dogmas. Those must be counter-balanced by anti-movements which seek to gain widespread public acceptance.

We touched on this in the other thread, but I think of this as one of the inevitabilities of progress. With the Japanese exception withstanding, modern societies see a need for egalitarianism that traditional, cultural societies lack.

I think Feminism is less dangerous than the opposite, but that a balance is best.

I think the Japanese model which we briefly touched upon is perhaps the closest we have to a "neighbourhood" approach.

But yes, I agree that today we're seeing the results of cultures failing to attain that balance. The next hundred years will really tell us a lot about the fate of the next thousand.

"Straight and narrow is the way" between stagnation and dillution, it seems.[/quote]

Agreed. I really do love Japan for that, even if they'd rather I keep my admiration at a distance. I can't seem to understand how they did it, though, and why other countries can't.

[DrSatanDracula]

Leagon:

I think that may be a natural occurrence as well. I wish I remembered the proper name for it, but creatures with shorter lives and less to offer have much, much more offspring, hoping that at least one will carry on their genes. They divide their attention and ability among all the offspring, resulting in horrible parenting for all, but possible success for one.

I don't think humans are any different. We naturally have smaller litters because we are large animals and have long lives, but I think economic factors come into play. Poor people have more kids, hoping that at least one will succeed and bring some value to the family name. The drawback is that each child gets less resources to work with.

Rich people are comfortable devoting their ample resources to one child and knowing the odds are stacked in his or her favor.

I'm not so sure I can accept the biological answer, or at least, not the main cause. I would perhaps permit this as a tritary cause, but I would argue that the economic and cultural (the declining emphasis on marriage and child rearing as a result of certain social movements including feminism) play a larger role. Poor people tend to still have sex and children, but I am not so sure that is a biological urge in light of evolutionary theory of multiple surviving offspring, as much as one where they are insulated from some of the cultural effects, and their economic apprehensions are offset by the fact that they do not foresee a lot of their expectations for their children as including expensive middle class luxuries.

A Harvard education for their six kids ain't in the mind of most poor people. We have suburban housewives that obsess over preschool and are forking out tens of thousands of dollars for completely ineffectual education at that level.

I'm of the opinion that the best answer is always forward, so I think Socialism is the next step, but I could see an argument for a return to the Capitalism that built us.

Socialism ala France and the Nordic countries is a live option. But I also see some deep problems in those systems. There is some sort of stagnation issues at playt here that I think can severely damage the situation. France has riots for virtually no reason and it gets worse the "better" it becomes. I'd also argue that some of the other aspects of society might not be able to be addressed within these systems.

That being said, I think, again, that there is reason to suspect it is an "open" choice. I'd have to analyze the best of what that European social welfare argument has to offer.

Hmmm...to go onto a philosophical rant. I'd be concerned that these countries, so heavily embroiled in post-modernist nihilism, might be directly related to their status. Sartre seemed so emminently "French" and also so horribly nihilistic. Deleuze and so many others seem to share in this. European intellectual culture in line with continental philosophy seems to have a character that frightens me for future vitality. The egalatarianism seems to be leading to what Nietzsche claimed in regards to the apotheosis of the mob.

But again, and back more on track, I think it is worth investigating that option as well.

Were I to pick ac ountry right off hand which I think is run rather well, I'd point to Switzerland. They seem to have many good policies. They manage to have an extremely gun-friendly culture which simulteneously doesn't have crazy gun violence. Nor do they have as many problems with dissolution of their culture and way of life.

We touched on this in the other thread, but I think of this as one of the inevitabilities of progress. With the Japanese exception withstanding, modern societies see a need for egalitarianism that traditional, cultural societies lack.

I think Feminism is less dangerous than the opposite, but that a balance is best.

I do believe that progress has a sort of inertia that we spoke of, or a "current" I think I said, but certain aspects of these currents are so disasterous that we really need a good oarsman to get us away from it.

I had a long discussion with a Mexican lady friend of mine the other day about this. We probably will have to retain some aspects of feminism, but at the same time steer away from the most destructive elements. As you just mentioned, balance is key.

I am reminded of the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Balance seems to be the optimal synthesis.

Agreed. I really do love Japan for that, even if they'd rather I keep my admiration at a distance. I can't seem to understand how they did it, though, and why other countries can't.

I'd love to visit, but wouldn't want to live, yes.

I think an indepth study of how they worked things out might reveal some positive things for civilization as a whole. Especially when we see a very frightening maladaption in the Middle East and other hot spots of trouble.

[melancholy]

Originally Posted by Throatpoker

They have stunning eyes, very interesting genes and culture, especially since they're surrounded by Muslim fundamentalists.

I believe that they do have Greek ancestry in them, because Alexander founded many cities throughout that region.

if you factor in persian troops in alexander's armies and camp followers, who were predominant persians and usually outnumber fighting troops, they might very well be iranians!!!

[adren@line]

Most of the people in northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan are Iranics, speak Iranian languages and "look" like Iranians. This includes the Pashtuns. These Kalashi are not related to the Sindhis and Punjabis that dominate Pakistan.

[Ham_Roll]

I dont know how you can compare these people to what a aboriginal looks like totally different not even close not even a little bit

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by DrSatanDracula

Modern international politics and diplomacy have done nothing to stop them, though.

I meant in those specific countries.

For example, such horror would never happen in Canada.

The UN is ineffectual and diplomacy is largely the same.

Sure we need an upgrade on some global organization and international laws.

We can not live without multiculturalism.

[DrSatanDracula]

Jay Pan ROKK:

I meant in those specific countries.

For example, such horror would never happen in Canada.

I agree as it stands now.

I can see something happening bad in Europe soon.

Sure we need an upgrade on some global organization and international laws.

We can not live without multiculturalism.

Ultimately, I think NGO pacts like NATO are more effective.

[jTF2]

THis is an absolutely fascinating thread. I never realized so many unique and endangered cultures exist around the world.

[SlowlyWeRot**]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

Sure, but multi cultural nations is ok imo, countries like India, USA, Canada, etc.

Mixed race nations like Brazil would be desirable also.

Diversity in all possible ways.

Yeah, a country like Brazil is soooo desirable.

When will people realize that the conflict multiculturalism creates is not worth the "niceness" of having other cultures at a convenient distance? That it does not create culture, but destroy it? Cultures exist when they are separate, and when they mix, they cease to exist. True global multiculturalism is when cultures are separate and unique, not when you have a couple white people, a couple Indians, a couple of black people, and a couple of Asians all part of the same culture and country living together. True diversity is when there are many DIFFERENT people all over the world, rather than people mixing and eventually becoming one, like in so many liberal wet dreams.

Modern society is based too much on feel-good bullshit, instead of rational, intelligent ideas.