6 ms·

It's getting downvoted because it's blatantly racist. How else do you interpret this but racism: > Earth is not gaining much by having millions of Egyptians -

It's getting downvoted because it's blatantly racist. How else do you interpret this but racism: > Earth is not gaining much by having millions of Egyptians - just increased resource degradation EDIT: It also says the reason for Egypt's higher fertility rate is Islam, while comparing it to Bangladesh, another Muslim country. So it's not like the comment is racist but insightful if you ignore racism. It's racist and nonsensical.

jiggawatts 5y ago
Historically, Catholicism was also responsible for a high birth rate because of their religious dogma. Is that racist or a factual observation? Not everything is racist. Racism is when you judge someone by their ethnicity alone. Racism is when you deny someone opportunities based only on their skin colour. Etc... I'm not going to automatically assume that every Irish woman I meet is a baby-making machine just because most Irish tend to be catholic. That would be stupid. That however doesn't negate the prior fact. Catholics as a group generally tended to oppose birth control. Making statistical observations about a nation, with numbers, is just science. Making judgements about official policy, whether it is political or religious in nature, is a statement about the policy, not any individual person. Be careful not to fall into the trap of labelling things with the most extreme version, it limits your ability to think clearly. Not every left-leaning policy is communist. Not every right-leaning policy is fascist. Not every comment about a country is racist.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > Is that racist or a factual observation? Unfortunately most people today can't tell the difference. Partly it's because they don't read anything about current affairs, partly they're not interested in discerning the difference. (I remember when discourse started to become post-factual and "truthy," but today it's the norm. Truthy means it sounds like it could be true, but there's no evidence behind it. If you listen to White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, basically every other sentence is not factual. Luckily she's resigning in about a year.)
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  I think you missed the point. To look at two Muslim countries and say one has slower population growth because the other is Islamic is not racist. It is nonsensical.
inglor_cz 5y ago
There are a lot of parameters that correlate with higher fertility rate, and higher religiousness is one of them. Many religions explicitly stress the need to go and multiply and priests/imams/rabbis repeat this message to the believers. In countries as culturally different as the U.S., the Netherlands, Israel and India, the most religious subgroups of population tend to have the most children. And, conversely, once the total level of religiousness starts to drop (as in formerly strongly Catholic countries of the Mediterranean, or in cities like Istanbul and Tehran), the birthrates plummet as well.
7steps2much 5y ago
> How else do you interpret this but racism: While the way it is phrased might not be perfect what they are saying still holds true. According to them Egypt has a very low scientific output, far lower than it should have. Of course scientific output isn't everything. These Egyptians might be using the water and resources for something else other than science. But none the less, from a global standpoint that doesn't help "us", as in the world as a whole. If the water was redirected to other nations these nations might increase their scientific output more than that of Egypt goes down, which means it's an overall win for humankind. To address your second point about religion: Is it really? A lot of religions advocate for having many children. Christianity as well. While of course it isn't the only factor studies[1] show that religious people have more children. So let's recap: * The commentor claimed that the water might be more use to humankind as a whole if it is directed to another nation that might raise their scientific output more than that of Egypt will lower. This is questionable because it doesn't take into account other factors like production of goods. But in general it holds true, humankind as a whole gains the most by having water used as effectively as possible * The commentor claimed that high birth rates are a result of religion. Once again this isn't a black/white matter. Religious people do have more children. Islam or Christianity, it doesn't matter. As such I would not call this in any way racist or islamophobic, though of course we are missing sources to know if this is actually the case. It might be or it might not be, but claiming it is definitely not the case and pulling the racism card is even more nonsensical as it discredits a possible, though not validated, option for why birth rates are high. [1]: https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/07/20/religious-people-really-do-have-more-children https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/07/20/religious-people-really...

jiggawatts 5y ago

Historically, Catholicism was also responsible for a high birth rate because of their religious dogma. Is that racist or a factual observation? Not everything is racist. Racism is when you judge someone by their ethnicity alone. Racism is when you deny someone opportunities based only on their skin colour. Etc... I'm not going to automatically assume that every Irish woman I meet is a baby-making machine just because most Irish tend to be catholic. That would be stupid. That however doesn't negate the prior fact. Catholics as a group generally tended to oppose birth control. Making statistical observations about a nation, with numbers, is just science. Making judgements about official policy, whether it is political or religious in nature, is a statement about the policy, not any individual person. Be careful not to fall into the trap of labelling things with the most extreme version, it limits your ability to think clearly. Not every left-leaning policy is communist. Not every right-leaning policy is fascist. Not every comment about a country is racist.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> Is that racist or a factual observation? Unfortunately most people today can't tell the difference. Partly it's because they don't read anything about current affairs, partly they're not interested in discerning the difference. (I remember when discourse started to become post-factual and "truthy," but today it's the norm. Truthy means it sounds like it could be true, but there's no evidence behind it. If you listen to White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, basically every other sentence is not factual. Luckily she's resigning in about a year.)
lazyasciiart 5y ago
I think you missed the point. To look at two Muslim countries and say one has slower population growth because the other is Islamic is not racist. It is nonsensical.

inglor_cz 5y ago

There are a lot of parameters that correlate with higher fertility rate, and higher religiousness is one of them. Many religions explicitly stress the need to go and multiply and priests/imams/rabbis repeat this message to the believers. In countries as culturally different as the U.S., the Netherlands, Israel and India, the most religious subgroups of population tend to have the most children. And, conversely, once the total level of religiousness starts to drop (as in formerly strongly Catholic countries of the Mediterranean, or in cities like Istanbul and Tehran), the birthrates plummet as well.

7steps2much 5y ago

> How else do you interpret this but racism: While the way it is phrased might not be perfect what they are saying still holds true. According to them Egypt has a very low scientific output, far lower than it should have. Of course scientific output isn't everything. These Egyptians might be using the water and resources for something else other than science. But none the less, from a global standpoint that doesn't help "us", as in the world as a whole. If the water was redirected to other nations these nations might increase their scientific output more than that of Egypt goes down, which means it's an overall win for humankind. To address your second point about religion: Is it really? A lot of religions advocate for having many children. Christianity as well. While of course it isn't the only factor studies[1] show that religious people have more children. So let's recap: * The commentor claimed that the water might be more use to humankind as a whole if it is directed to another nation that might raise their scientific output more than that of Egypt will lower. This is questionable because it doesn't take into account other factors like production of goods. But in general it holds true, humankind as a whole gains the most by having water used as effectively as possible * The commentor claimed that high birth rates are a result of religion. Once again this isn't a black/white matter. Religious people do have more children. Islam or Christianity, it doesn't matter. As such I would not call this in any way racist or islamophobic, though of course we are missing sources to know if this is actually the case. It might be or it might not be, but claiming it is definitely not the case and pulling the racism card is even more nonsensical as it discredits a possible, though not validated, option for why birth rates are high. [1]: https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/07/20/religious-people-really-do-have-more-children https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/07/20/religious-people-really...