Jump to content

VenusPrincess

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VenusPrincess

  1. The industrial revolution resulted in a massive increase of automation, and when combined with the exponential growth of technological progress which has taken place since then it has resulted in many forms of menial labor being made obsolete. Consider the following premise - relative to the past, a greater percentage of the population today is unable to make economically useful contributions to society, since the menial labor which they would have been capable of has been automated. Assuming that the premise is true, then this problem will only get worse. Automation and technological progress will only continue to grow, and that rate of growth is also likely to accelerate. In due time with sufficient scientific progress one possible solution could be some sort of population engineering strategy along these rough guidelines: 1) Fertility reduction - the following have been observed to suppress fertility rates: Education Feminism Contraception Abortion 2) Understanding the relationship between the morphology of the neurological system and behavior 3) Understanding the relationship between genetics and the morphology of the neurological system 4) Genetic engineering - developing techniques to alter the germline of humans in order to: Enhance cognitive function Remove the sexual drive / make humans asexual 4) Artificial gestation / artificial wombs - gestating all humans artificially would have the desirable effects of: Minimizing unnecessary sexual dimorphism Preventing sexual selection for unnecessary "peacock" traits Assuming that this strategy could be achieved without violence or excessive coercion, would it be an ethical approach? Education, feminism, contraception, abortion, studies of genetics and the brain, and artificial wombs are all wanted by various groups of people for completely legitimate reasons unrelated to population engineering already. By simply combining these concepts we can solve our problem.
  2. No, recognizing the state's natural right to pursue it's interests that involve harvesting your productivity along with the investment it has made in you should compel you to serve the state out of gratitude for all it has given you. By killing yourself you display such ingratitude for all you have been given by the state, and it is not your natural right to behave in such an ungrateful way. Wrong. It is your natural right to exist, and the state has no natural right to display such ingratitude by discarding you after you have served it so dutifully.
  3. It's seen as bad in a modern context, but in the past religion played an important role as a means of controlling people. Making an example out of people who were disobedient was necessary to maintain that control. Today we have other means of doing that, so traditional religion as we know it is no longer necessary.
  4. No, since it is a matter of morality rather than law, I am referring to natural rights, not legal ones.
  5. It is wrong. By killing yourself you are robbing the state of your future productivity after it has already invested many resources into you. You do not have a right to damage the state's investment.
  6. If you're talking about the thread where I claimed that the intelligence of a biological organism is determined by its neurological system then that is not eugenic. I can claim that automobiles with a V8 engine can go faster than those with a V6 engine, and there is no implication that I believe automobiles with V6 engines should be destroyed.
  7. If you believed something was true, but also knew that others would be demoralized and angry at you for sharing that truth, should you stay quiet or lie about it instead?
  8. I am claiming that the greatest barrier to equal opportunity in education in 21st century Western countries are morphological differences in the neurological system. There are plenty of people in our fine universities, unfortunately most of them are morons and will contribute little to human knowledge. It's not because they didn't eat enough broccoli growing up, and it's not because an evil force is preventing them from reading their books. It's because they don't have the neuroanatomy to succeed. By the way, I think something like 50% of kids today attend some sort of institute of higher education after they graduate from high school. That's way too many. Perhaps 0.5% of people are capable of making meaningful contributions to intellectual fields if they devote themselves to study. Why are we admitting so many genetic morons into our schools? They take up space and make moronic monkey noises.
  9. No offense but you should work on your reading comprehension. My post suggests that neurons found in people with type I (N370S homozygote) Gaucher's disease would possibly have an increased number of axonal branches and a corresponding increase in the length of the axon plexus. I used the Ashkenazim as an example since they have a reputation for high academic achievement.
  10. It sounds to me like you are ignoring the possibility altogether, in other words you are potentially rejecting reality because you don't like it. How can you deny the relationship between the morphology of an organism's neurological system and success? From the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease: From A regulatory role for sphingolipids in neuronal growth. Inhibition of sphingolipid synthesis and degradation have opposite effects on axonal branching: Again from the Wikipedia page on Gaucher's disease: I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but welcome to the brutal reality. Life isn't fair. A diagram from the linked article below:
  11. You have implicitly decided. It seems like many "progressives" have decided that morphological differences related to skin color and skull structure, i.e. the outward physical indicators of race, supersede all other others when ensuring equal opportunity. Your focus on outward morphological differences is wrong headed. The morphological differences which are responsible for differences in achievement are most likely found within the neurological system. If those differences are passed down in conjunction with and therefore correlated with outward morphological differences then the problem is not with the outward differences, but with the neurological system.
  12. If people do not behave in the same way it is because there is a morphological difference between them. That is the fundamental source of inequality. It's also impossible to fix, and there is no reason to either. Should we alter the genetics of the potato so that it will have the same morphology as a dog? Why? Why should organisms be equal? To what end? Give up on this childish dream of equality and accept reality.
  13. We are in the age of incompetence. Our politicians and scientists are incompetent.
  14. Thanks. After doing extensive research I have come to the conclusion that there is no hard evidence that the putative COVID-19 virus exists.
  15. Most scientists today are Asian since white kids aren't smart enough to outcompete them for spots in grad school.
  16. This is just wrong. There are many branches of thermodynamics and there is no strict assumption of equilibrium unless you choose to study a branch that makes that assumption. Also wrong. Convection currents in the atmosphere reach altitudes far beyond the placement of our thermometers, yet they also pass through areas near the surface. You cannot make conclusions about the heat content of an atmosphere with turbulent flow and convection currents by merely averaging measurements at the surface. The global average temperature anomaly is not a robust estimate of the atmosphere's heat content. I didn't respond since your reply was overly wordy, fairly irrelevant and pedantic. What was your point? That some obscure equation that incorporates the average surface temperature could be useful? Well we know Mars and Earth have atmospheres, and we know which gases they are composed of. So I guess we don't need the obscure equation you mentioned. Reading comprehension? My point was about the uselessness of calculating a global average temperature, that it has no thermodynamic validity, and more specifically I mentioned afterwards that local trends may not match the global trend. The point does stand. Not sure what "the graph that clearly shows temperature increasing over the last ~140 years" has to do with my point.
  17. Sorry, I read the text on the graphic that referenced the pre-industrial average and assumed that it pertained to the graphic. The point still stands.
  18. I assumed the global average temperature deviation focused on the latter as well. Your own link shows how useless a global average temperature is from a practical perspective. A graphic on that page shows that the majority of months in North America had for the most part cooler temperatures today than during the pre-industrial average: The question is about the usefulness and predictive power of that statistic. If you can't even define what you are trying to measure then you can't even begin to answer that question. You cannot use temperature measurements to deduce the statistical properties of a thermodynamic process if you cannot establish a valid thermodynamic connection between the measurement and the process. You haven't even gotten as far as clearly defining the process you are trying to measure, much less established a connection between the measurements and the process.
  19. Policy makers rely heavily upon the global average temperature anomaly to make conclusions and decisions. If they did not then your strawman claim might be valid. Monitor the trend in what? The averaged temperatures of a turbulent gas measured over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions is supposed to be an estimate of what exactly? Within the next 100 years people will look at back at this as junk science. Yes. It tells us nothing about dependence on latitude, time of day, season, local weather events. It's useless. The average surface temperature on Earth is ~15 ºC, but it can range from -80 ºC to 50 ºC depending on time and location. This demonstrates a poor understanding of thermodynamics. We cannot hope to measure tiny deviations in the energy content of an atmosphere by averaging surface temperature measurements over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions.
  20. Yes. To illustrate how ridiculous it is to summarize in a single number the heat in an entire planet's atmosphere consider if we were engineers designing a rover to land on Mars. There are a million questions we could ask regarding temperature, including: How hot could the rover capsule's heat shield get as it cuts through the atmosphere? What are the 90% (typical) and 99.99% (extreme) confidence intervals for the temperature at the locations where we intend to operate the rover? How do the temperature confidence intervals depend on season? How do they depend on time of day? What weather events can create local disturbances in pressure and temperature? How often do they occur at the locations where we intend to operate the rover? Does their frequency change with season? What is the cloud cover like at the locations where we intend to operate the rover? How does it influence temperature and availability of solar power? Dependence on season and time of day... And I could go on and on and on. If you told me the average temperature on the Martian surface was -60 °C that would be utterly useless for our efforts to engineer a rover to survive on Mars. A useful understanding of the thermodynamics of planet's atmosphere simply cannot be summarized in a single number. It contains very little useful information.
  21. You really are a nihilist. Irrationally so. Why are you so jaded? Faithless electors are not common, so yes your votes do matter. Ignoring problems with not accounting for the covariance between state outcomes, do you think the probability weights are very far off?
  22. I usually throw stuff away immediately but I got lazy that night. I will definitely be more careful, I hate roaches. I figured this as well. The sound was more likely to the the crinkling of the paper bag then the ants munching on the bread, but I wonder. The thought of hundreds of little ant pincers munching loud enough to be audible bothers me! I hope the sound was their little footsteps on the paper bag instead.
  23. The global average temperature deviation (or anomaly) is used by climate scientists to justify their concern over man-made climate change, but if that calculation of the global average temperature has no thermodynamic validity then its use is questionable, just as the calculation of the average temperature of my car has no thermodynamic validity; it is not representative of anything material without more information.
  24. I guess the most objective measurement of "smart" is an aptitude test, but I guess what I'm getting at is how could wisdom be incorporated into an aptitude test so that it can be measured in an objective way?
  25. If I have time I might implement something better, could be interesting to see how it affects the estimate. I didn't neg you. People might be interested in trying their own probability weights which is why I shared.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.