3 ms·
You can just flatly assert that, but it'd be more interesting if you supported your assertion with some kind of argument. What exactly do you think is going to
by jlawson 7y ago
You can just flatly assert that, but it'd be more interesting if you supported your assertion with some kind of argument. What exactly do you think is going to dissolve the Amish that didn't do so already? Do you not think fertility is heritable, and if not, how not?
Also, who said anything about genes? Sub-groups can be separated by culture, religion, genetics, or any combination of the above. Amish are separated by all 3.
Religiosity is also linked to genetics; this is scientifically established (though not totally proven yet).
- iamnothere 7y agoNot the person you're replying to, but I'll give a hypothetical argument. The Amish have an extremely successful culture right now because their society positions them advantageously versus the predominant culture. Their practices are excellent for building strong communities and providing efficient, effective mutual aid in a form that is lacking in society at large; and unlike what most people think of the Amish, they do adopt some modern technology, but only that which strengthens the community. As the Amish community grows, they will face the same challenges faced by all growing, successful "challenger" cultures: envy and resentment, followed by active undermining of their culture and attempts at assimilation through popular media, fashion, and a hostile legislative environment. (This presents itself as a sort of "embrace, extend, extinguish" effect, with the end product being ethnic restaurants and kitsch once the culture has been fully digested.) The Amish may be able to adapt to face this challenge, but what often happens is that the process of adaptation ruins the good and unique things about the culture, and the assimilation happens anyway. Cultures that resist this effect stay small by necessity. An example of a culture recently reaching this "breakout" point where pushback is encountered is the Hasidic community in New York. A good example of a culture that is left alone due to its small size is the Sikh-American community. An example of a fully digested culture is the Italian-American community, which no longer exists as a separate identity.
- jlawson 7y agoWell I'm not saying the Amish are "successful" in any sense of morality or human flourishing; I'm making no claim on that. I'm just saying they multiply fast. Not a judgment, just an observation. I agree the pathway would definitely change. You'd see pushback. It's not like the Amish will be 300 million in their exact current format. So let's say that does happen and the Amish start getting targeted for "embrace, extend, extinguish", or some variation of semi-forced immigration and assimilation. Amish aren't homogenous. Some of them would be taken by this, assimilate, and drop birth rates. Some would not. Whatever characteristics made that last part not assimilate would then get replicated into a larger and larger population share. And the process continues. We may see several phases of this, but at the conclusion of the process, the evolutionary logic leads to a certain result: A population who are absolutely, totally immune to any influence that would assimilate them into a negative-birthrate culture. And that population will rapidly expand until it hits physical limits. The reason I think this is inevitable is because evolution is relentlessly adaptable, while the countermeasures are fairly static. It's like a new antibiotic. Even if it works really well, the bacteria's evolutionary process will just keep trying and trying until it finds a new replication pathway. The replicators can adapt forever while the force that is stopping them cannot.
- iamnothere 7y agoA thoughtful response, and I think you are right in that not every Amish sub-community would be assimilated. This is already happening; there was a chapter in Kevin Kelly's "What Technology Wants" that describes the differing perspectives within the different Amish communities on things such as technology. There are some Amish communities that resist almost all modern tech; these communities are probably more likely to stay small over time (hard to attract and keep members), but I imagine they are also less likely to be absorbed into modern society than the rest of the Amish population. To me, it appears that some sub-subcultures manage to maintain their identities by putting up huge barriers to entry; the more costly they are (in terms of personal sacrifice), the more likely that the culture will maintain its identity, up to a certain point. Robin Hanson has described this a fair amount as well. Some cultures have a "price of admission" that can't be easily faked (I forget his term for this) in order to protect their group resources against disloyal outsiders who may take advantage of the group. This explains a lot of the bizarre, contradictory, and otherwise illogical practices that you see in these insular cultures.
- haihaibye 7y agoExactly- they work well as a niche in a safe country providing police and guarded by a massive military. But a country of Amish? They'd be conquered in a day.
- jessaustin 7y agoI flatly assert that the Amish are like the thousands of other weird "traditionalist" isolationist minority subcultures who have existed throughout human history. None of those ever made it to "billions" either, and lots of them were even more pro-procreation than the Amish. If the Amish were a larger population, they'd have to mingle more with the rest of us. They make a big deal about their rumspringa, but their culture will not survive repeated mingling. Video games are fun. Tinder is fun. Air conditioning is comfortable. Let the robots pick the turnips.