Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Jenab's Master Race

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby Aaron » Fri 30 Jun 2006, 23:20:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '.')..you'll really hate my thread which blames beer for peak oil.


Say it isn't so!


I'm afraid so... http://www.peakoil.com/post315723.html#315723
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby lotrfan55345 » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 00:19:08

How white does one have to be??? Most people have atleast some black admixture, weather it be from Europe originally or recently from slave owners and such.
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 01:58:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lotrfan55345', 'H')ow white does one have to be??? Most people have atleast some black admixture, weather it be from Europe originally or recently from slave owners and such.
Not me, I have admixtures from everywhere but Africa. And maybe Asia. I have a next door neighbor who is a black lady with a marvelously beautiful daughter in her twenties. The boys are after her and I hear screaming and carrying on all the time. Tempestous and Raucous. Today there was a boy who wanted in but she was turning up the volume on Aretha Franklin, "R E S P E C T, what my body means to me!' Everybody is in a different situation.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Tue 04 Jul 2006, 23:44:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'N')ot only did the remaining passengers survive, they founded a nation (after they beached their boat in a new land) whose average member was an improvement over the average where they'd come from.
No they didn't, Jerry, this was all in your mind.

The whole scenario was a thought experiment, and the conclusion that I reached was a reasonable one, entirely consistent with the principles of natural selection.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut let me ask the question of the determination of quality. How do you think that should be determined and who should do the determining? If this is an impossible question to answer, then you might as well forget your fantasy new world.

How is a standardized test graded? Or is that "impossible"?

How is it determined which athlete gets the Olympic gold medal for his event? Or is this another question that's "impossible" to answer?

I don't suppose that there might be any way to test objectively for manual dexterity either, huh?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')nd, as Monte indicated, your invented scenarios have nothing to do with increasing the quality of the genetic stock. You completely misunderstand evolution if you think your carefully engineered world will continue on as you hope.

You have mischaracterized my argument, TonyPrep. I did not describe any "carefully engineered world," and in my opinion you chose that phrase with pejorative intentions. You used it to invite to me the thoughtless contempt of casual readers. My world is engineered only insofar as the people in it are required, or conditioned, to wisely choose their spouses. And in this conditioning there is no artifice. No laboratory gene-splicing. No doctors doing any cloning. Just people having standards about the biological, heritable character of those whom they consider worthy mates.

My scenarios were intended to show why it can be necessary to sacrifice some to save others. Incidentally, I also showed that it matters who lives, that some sacrificial choices are better than others. You can only take argument by unsubstantiated declaration so far, Tony... right to the point where someone calls your bluff, as I'm doing now. Substantiate. Show rationale. Explain why.

I keep hearing, again and again, that I've confused the struggle for survival with the survival of the fittest. I keep hearing, repeatedly, that what we can actually do about increasing the ability of people to carry loads, to fight, to solve problems, to improvise or to build to last, to manipulate objects small or large, to move with agile quickness, and so forth, will do nothing to determine how well the enhanced group handles the challenges nature throws their way. Regardless of the repetitive nature of these and similar objections, I disagree. It is, indeed, worthwhile to load a gene pool, eugenically, with positive qualities and remove negative qualities in the same way. Doing these things will help people survive. We can't predict all that nature will do, but we can at least make sure that they won't fall short in the qualities that have been proved valuable across all the history of which we know.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby Jenab6 » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 00:37:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I')t was their mental limitations that prevented them from harming their environment more, faster, and on larger scales than they did.
So lower intelligence equals more likely to live sustainably? You really do need to get your position straight.

I see that I've pegged you correctly in regard to motivation. My position is straight. You lopped off implications that I didn't make explicit because they were so obvious.

Aboriginals, like every other hominid of which I know, do everything they can to exploit their environment. Eventually, they go beyond sustainability and lack the (usually intellectual) means to haul themselves up to the next higher rung on the exploitation ladder. Lower intelligence does not mean more sustainability; it only means that the lifestyle becomes unsustainable sooner.

They kill their buffalo or their forest and die back until the remnant is again in balance with the food supply. So will we, of course. But we got to a higher rung on the technical ladder before the correction came, and that's really the only difference. We might not be wiser than the aboriginals, but we are certainly smarter. If you wonder why we're smarter, just seek out the data relating race to brain size and structure.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I') don't see anything substantial about MonteQuest's difference with me
Monte understands evolution, you don't seem to. Monte has mentioned this quite a few times.

Monte usually makes sense. When he's writing on energy issues, fossil fuel depletion, and why a given alternative energy proposal won't work, I can follow him perfectly. He's nearly always right - on those subjects. But when a whiff of support comes for harsh methods, currently in vast political disfavor, when there's a suggestion that the time has come to implement them with vigor, so that those who will live in times beyond 2100 will be better endowed with basic, heritable virtues than we are today, he begins throwing out paragraphs that seem, at first glance, to be in profound dispute to what I've said, but, when examined closely, don't really make sense.

There's a significant difference in the quality of thought that MonteQuest puts into his usual Peak Oil writing and that which exhibits in his dissent to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'H')owever, you should know a few things that you evidently do not.And would those apparent failings would have been picked up by your selection process, Jerry? Would you have chosen Einstein?
The process I'd use would be the standardized test (for mental giftedness), various athletic contests (for testing strength, agility, dexterity, and stamina), and there'd be some way devised to test for other qualities. If Einstein cheated to get more recognition than he deserved, these tests would foil him: he couldn't cheat, and he'd lose. Having lost, he wouldn't be selected.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I')Q tests scores have proved to be a very reliable indicator of what sort of career people have and how well they do in those careers.Goody. That's fine when you have careers in your society. What sorts of careers do you envisage, Jerry?
You seem to think that there won't be any use for intelligence when there's no technology to use. On the contrary, if technology ever did anything, it reduced the amount of intelligence that people had to have to get by in life. It likewise reduced the amount of strength and general competence, too. There will be more use for intelligence in the post fossil fuel world than there is, here, at the latter part of industrial civilization.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'F')urthermore, heredity has been shown to be several times more influential than environment in determining IQ.I don't know if that's true, but I don't think anyone has even suggested that environment is a factor in intelligence.
Yes, this has certainly been suggested. And it isn't entirely incorrect, either. Good nutrition in childhood is an environmental factor, and it has some influence on adult intelligence. But all the environmental influences put together only seem to account for about 20% of the variance in adult intelligence, whereas heredity accounts for about 80%. (See Arthur Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost Intelligence and Scholastic Achievement?" 1969, Harvard University Press.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he point is that evolution can undo all your fine plans. Genetic variation can undo all of your fine plans. If some other attribute allows dominance to be gained, then dominance will be gained by the less intelligent. Unless you intend to filter out all abberations, in your perfect world. Do you?
Nobody can predict the future with certainty. Information does not come into the present from the future because that would violate thermodynamic laws. The only way to judge the future is by the past. And what do we see when we examine the past?

We find that strength has consistently been more advantageous than weakness.

We find that intelligence has consistently been more advantageous than stupidity.

We find that dextrousness is better than clumsiness.

We find that the short race goes to the swift, while those who can't run so fast lost whatever prize was being raced for.

We find that the longer race goes to the runner with great stamina, while those who pooped out early lost whatever prize was being raced for.

Now, please try to understand this. I know it's hard, but try.

An improvement in hereditary constitution in one character, accomplished by eugenic methods, does not need to be "paid for" by a rise of defectiveness somewhere else!

Those "unknowns" that might, or might not, someday prove to be crucial, vital, required for survival, are still present in the eugenically enhanced people in the same measure that it would have been present if those other qualities had not been targeted for eugenic improvement.

Qualities not affected by selective breeding or assortative mating are just that: NOT AFFECTED. Not raised, of course, since there was no attempt to do so. But not lowered, either.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby Jenab6 » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 01:13:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lotrfan55345', 'H')ow white does one have to be??? Most people have atleast some black admixture, weather it be from Europe originally or recently from slave owners and such.

I know my ancestry back to about 1650 on my father's side. On my mother's side, I know some lines only to 1825, others farther back. But as far as I know, there's only one possible Amerindian, a Cherokee named Amee, and it's not certain she's an ancestress of mine because the records don't show which woman (Amee or the previous White wife) bore the child who was next in that line toward me. Other than that possible splotch, I'm all White, as far as I can tell.

And, anyway, Frodo, go marry an Orc. They're just as good as any hobbit girl, you know.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby lotrfan55345 » Wed 05 Jul 2006, 01:30:18

What about Italians? They are considered "white" but due to significant trade with North Africa, most people carry African genetic markers and are responsible for the "darker" features??
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Thu 06 Jul 2006, 19:42:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', '
')
Between industrious and bum, I favor the industrious.


But who decides? The Europeans who invaded North America 500 years ago described the indigenous peoples they encountered as lazy, when, in fact, they merely had an alternative approach to living that the Europeans did not understand.

In retrospect, we see that the indigenous "bums" led a sustainable lifestyle that had lasted for 10,000 years up until that point, while the "industrious" Europeans replaced them with a lifestyle that has, essentially, brought us to Peak Oil and all that will result from that.

If I were asked to decide between the industrious and bum in 1492, I would favor the bum.

Who gets to decide?


Since the Earth will eventually be engulfed by the Sun, humans need to leave Earth and populate the rest of the universe. If we all lived like the Indians, merely surviving, the human race would eventually die out. But if we live as the Europeans, we will colonize the rest of the universe and avoid the death of the human race, at least for a long while. So which side would you favor?
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Thu 06 Jul 2006, 19:48:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')etween strong and weak, I favor the strong.

Between fleet and sluggish, I favor the fleet.

Between savant and retard, I favor the savant.

Between industrious and bum, I favor the industrious.

Between dextrous and clumsy, I favor the dextrous.


As a WASP, I would have to say that the Asian people win in all of those categories. I believe that scientific studies have shown the same thing. I would assume Jerry that you believe the same thing and you are preparing to jump out of the lifeboat in order to make way for the new Asian world.


Am I correct?


Asians are stronger and faster than all other races? That must be why they dominate boxing and track and field events.
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Thu 06 Jul 2006, 20:00:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', ' ')They were less intelligent. While it would be a mistake to name them the least intelligent race on Earth, the Amerinds were certainly not on a level with the Europeans.


Less intelligent?

1. Indians helped the first Europeans grow food and avoid die-off. Those intelligent Europeans were unable to survive without those dumb Indians helping them.

2. It takes no genius to pull a trigger.

3. There are reasons why Indians did not develop at the same rate as Europeans. For a more detailed disucssion I'd suggest Guns, Germs and Steel.


Just a small question. When the Indians fought each other, and stole land from one another, does that bother you as much as when the Europeans did the same exact thing to the Indians?
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby Doly » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 06:27:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'T')hey were less intelligent. While it would be a mistake to name them the least intelligent race on Earth, the Amerinds were certainly not on a level with the Europeans.


Do you have any hard data proving this (intelligence tests, for example)?

Because the migration from Asia to America must have been anything but easy. And the South Americans I know, who often have mixed blood, seem to be if anything a bit quicker and wittier than Spaniards in conversation.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TheTurtle » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 09:22:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakKYJelly', '
')
Since the Earth will eventually be engulfed by the Sun, humans need to leave Earth and populate the rest of the universe. If we all lived like the Indians, merely surviving, the human race would eventually die out. But if we live as the Europeans, we will colonize the rest of the universe and avoid the death of the human race, at least for a long while. So which side would you favor?


And the Universe is either going to contract back to a point of singularity or expand forever until it is a vast lifeless void (depending upon whether the Universe is open or closed). So, as you suggest, in the long run, the human race is doomed no matter what ... 4 billion years from now or 20 billion amounts to much the same in the final analysis. 8O

I therefore favor whichever approach fowls our nest the least while we wait for the end of everything.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 11:28:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakKYJelly', '
')
Since the Earth will eventually be engulfed by the Sun, humans need to leave Earth and populate the rest of the universe. If we all lived like the Indians, merely surviving, the human race would eventually die out. But if we live as the Europeans, we will colonize the rest of the universe and avoid the death of the human race, at least for a long while. So which side would you favor?


And the Universe is either going to contract back to a point of singularity or expand forever until it is a vast lifeless void (depending upon whether the Universe is open or closed). So, as you suggest, in the long run, the human race is doomed no matter what ... 4 billion years from now or 20 billion amounts to much the same in the final analysis. 8O

I therefore favor whichever approach fowls our nest the least while we wait for the end of everything.


Unless we can just escape into another universe, which requires the development of technology. Living off the land, like the Indians did, isn't going to get us to that point. Animals live off the land. Humans should do something more.
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TheTurtle » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 11:51:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakKYJelly', '[') Animals live off the land. Humans should do something more.


That perceived dichotomy is the reason we are trashing this planet. There is no reason to think we wouldn't trash other planets within this galaxy or beyond. If we just move from planet to planet and universe to universe, destroying everything in our path, I don't really see the point.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 15:19:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', ' ')I don't really see the point.
and furthermore, it doesn't matter what will happen in 50,000 years let alone 4 billion. It is completely irrevocably irrelevant in any possible way to anyone alive now or in a hundred years from now. We are given this little slice of time and that's it. Then we die and find out if there's anything on the other side.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 17:21:34

Unless, as some authors predict, man can achieve immortality, in which case 50,000 years from now does matter very much. Even if we can't, I would imagine you would want to provide a better world for your children. Only caring about yourself for today seems like what animals do. I've never seen a cat plan for the future.
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 17:54:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakKYJelly', 'U')nless, as some authors predict, man can achieve immortality, in which case 50,000 years from now does matter very much. Even if we can't, I would imagine you would want to provide a better world for your children. Only caring about yourself for today seems like what animals do. I've never seen a cat plan for the future.
Authors predicting immortality are living in a bubble of illusion. Providing a better world for our children is what some of us would like to try and do. But it's looking slim and gloomy, not too good. But 50,000 years from now is, as I said, completely irrelevant.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Fri 07 Jul 2006, 18:23:19

Stephen Hawking says mankind must colonize other planets, to ensure the survival of the human race. Do you think his comments are irrelevant? Is he living in a bubble? Should someone tell him that since the universe must one day come to an end, why even bother?
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby lotrfan55345 » Sat 08 Jul 2006, 00:26:54

Couldn't other races achieve the same level of technology as the whites? As history shows, W. Europe has for a relatively short time (historically) been at the top of the technology tree and some non-white countries can be considered more advanced in technology as the white countries. (ie Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Israel [if jews aren't white for you])
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh
Top

Unread postby PeakKYJelly » Sat 08 Jul 2006, 11:18:06

Do you think that if the Indians did not have their country taken over by Europeans, that their lifestyle of living off the land, not preparing for the future, would have led them to land on the moon in 1969?
User avatar
PeakKYJelly
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests



cron