An excellent parable! The argument against the Nazism meme is quite well laid out, though Colonel Frank comes off a bit like a straw man.
Unfortunately, I think this argument misses the main difficulty the General faces. It’s easy to see that it would be better to replace the movement with something more sound. But policy makers cannot simply decide whether to preserve the Nazism meme. Actually changing dominant cultural ideas is a tremendously difficult problem, especially when the belief framework includes a sense of persecution. You cannot simply make it disappear by banning swastikas and slapping pro-democracy slogans on public transit vehicles.
The demise of the Nazi ideology may hold important lessons about effecting cultural change. There is still tremendous guilt about the Nazi movement in the German psyche—they even avoid the word, preferring the abbreviation NS. What happened to cause such a rapid and thorough reversal? Was it simply the revelation of the massive atrocities? I don’t know, but I don’t think this cause is by itself sufficient. Clearly many factors influenced the fall of Fascism; I would be curious to see this reversal studied in depth.
On a related note, all discussions of religion are now over, and we have lost. Does it make it better that Yvain knew it going in?
He is referring to the link to Godwin’s Law in the post. From the wiki.
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion
forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever
mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.
Actually changing dominant cultural ideas is a tremendously difficult problem, especially when the belief framework includes a sense of persecution.
Seconded.
Religions are notoriously difficult to eradicate by force. Considering all that’s happened, it’s rather amazing that Judaism managed to survive. Similarly, neither the Roman Empire nor the Soviet Communists were successful at eliminating the influence of Christianity.
On the other hand, Christianity was quite successful at eliminating some competing religions, by utilizing the direct approach: physically eliminating all of their adherents.
The usual defense against that kind of thing is to pretend to convert while practicing your religion in secret. But yes, that does work if you know who to kill.
The problem is that many, if not most, religions impose two very strongly valued goals on their followers: 1). in-group and out-group separation, and 2). evangelism. These goals conflict directly with this new goal of 3). staying hidden so that you don’t get burned at the stake. Many religions also devalue the follower’s life on this Material Plane, which drives the utility of (3) even further down. As the result, heretics don’t get the chance to survive in secret nearly as often as one might think.
The problem is that many, if not most, religions impose two very strongly valued goals on their followers: 1). in-group and out-group separation, and 2). evangelism.
At least the religions that still exist do. Fancy that!
Actually, you hear about some of them all the time. Notably Judaism and Hinduism. Or perhaps more accurately, they online evangelize internally (and then only Lubavitchers and Hindu nationalists, respectively)
On the other hand, a number of polytheistic religions were pretty much eliminated by monotheistic religions.
I assume that any religion that’s more than a few centuries old is a very resilient set of memes (so are some younger religions, of course, but it’s harder to predict with them) and isn’t going away any time soon, unless, of course, there’s a singularity or something extraordinary in the way of new religious ideas comes along.
Once we have artificial intelligence, can artificial deity be far behind? Indeed a fooming AI will have many of the amazing aspects typically attributed to a god.
On the other hand, a number of polytheistic religions were pretty much eliminated by monotheistic religions.
Indeed; when that same Roman Empire became officially Christian, they eventually did end “paganism” within its borders, although it took them a long time to get serious about it.
An excellent parable! The argument against the Nazism meme is quite well laid out, though Colonel Frank comes off a bit like a straw man.
Unfortunately, I think this argument misses the main difficulty the General faces. It’s easy to see that it would be better to replace the movement with something more sound. But policy makers cannot simply decide whether to preserve the Nazism meme. Actually changing dominant cultural ideas is a tremendously difficult problem, especially when the belief framework includes a sense of persecution. You cannot simply make it disappear by banning swastikas and slapping pro-democracy slogans on public transit vehicles.
The demise of the Nazi ideology may hold important lessons about effecting cultural change. There is still tremendous guilt about the Nazi movement in the German psyche—they even avoid the word, preferring the abbreviation NS. What happened to cause such a rapid and thorough reversal? Was it simply the revelation of the massive atrocities? I don’t know, but I don’t think this cause is by itself sufficient. Clearly many factors influenced the fall of Fascism; I would be curious to see this reversal studied in depth.
On a related note, all discussions of religion are now over, and we have lost. Does it make it better that Yvain knew it going in?
Agreed.
All discussions where? Who are ‘we’? What did Yvain know, precisely?
This last remark could be somewhat clearer...
He is referring to the link to Godwin’s Law in the post. From the wiki.
Thank you! That makes so much more sense =)
Seconded.
Religions are notoriously difficult to eradicate by force. Considering all that’s happened, it’s rather amazing that Judaism managed to survive. Similarly, neither the Roman Empire nor the Soviet Communists were successful at eliminating the influence of Christianity.
On the other hand, Christianity was quite successful at eliminating some competing religions, by utilizing the direct approach: physically eliminating all of their adherents.
The usual defense against that kind of thing is to pretend to convert while practicing your religion in secret. But yes, that does work if you know who to kill.
The problem is that many, if not most, religions impose two very strongly valued goals on their followers: 1). in-group and out-group separation, and 2). evangelism. These goals conflict directly with this new goal of 3). staying hidden so that you don’t get burned at the stake. Many religions also devalue the follower’s life on this Material Plane, which drives the utility of (3) even further down. As the result, heretics don’t get the chance to survive in secret nearly as often as one might think.
At least the religions that still exist do. Fancy that!
I would argue that the majority of religions that no longer exist also fit this pattern, however.
There are religions which don’t virulently evangelize, you just don’t hear about them as much. It’s like the difference between kudzu and orchids.
Actually, you hear about some of them all the time. Notably Judaism and Hinduism. Or perhaps more accurately, they online evangelize internally (and then only Lubavitchers and Hindu nationalists, respectively)
On the other hand, a number of polytheistic religions were pretty much eliminated by monotheistic religions.
I assume that any religion that’s more than a few centuries old is a very resilient set of memes (so are some younger religions, of course, but it’s harder to predict with them) and isn’t going away any time soon, unless, of course, there’s a singularity or something extraordinary in the way of new religious ideas comes along.
Once we have artificial intelligence, can artificial deity be far behind? Indeed a fooming AI will have many of the amazing aspects typically attributed to a god.
Indeed; when that same Roman Empire became officially Christian, they eventually did end “paganism” within its borders, although it took them a long time to get serious about it.