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

Jenab's Master Race

Unread postby Jenab6 » Fri 23 Jun 2006, 23:00:33

{split by MQ from PO discussion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I'), in no way, feel that a powerdown is giving up on anything. It is recognizing that there are limits and we have been living beyond them. It is also recognizing that we just might return to a mindset that sees "free time" is worth more than money. That quality is worth more than quantity.

Yeah!! Glorious insight, there, MonteQuest. That simple statement is profound and true. Now take the step of applying it to people, to human biology, to life and death and mating and eugenics. If not everyone can live, if some must unavoidably starve, then isn't it important to see that the survivors come from the best stock? Isn't it wise to work toward maximizing the human quality to food calorie ratio for the same reason that a farmer chooses his bean crop varieties to maximize his value to labor ratio? Inasmuch as a human being is worth more than a bean, isn't it that much more important to attend to human quality than to the quality of a farmer's beans?

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: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 04:16:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I')f not everyone can live, if some must unavoidably starve, then isn't it important to see that the survivors come from the best stock?
Are you going to define "best", Jerry? And what about genetic mutations?

You can't build a perfect world, Jerry. To try is to fail.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 04:36:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I')f not everyone can live, if some must unavoidably starve, then isn't it important to see that the survivors come from the best stock?
Are you going to define "best", Jerry? And what about genetic mutations?

You can't build a perfect world, Jerry. To try is to fail. Tony

I didn't say that I'd try to build a "perfect" world. I will say, on the other hand, that it's possible to build one much better, and that a good beginning would be helping, in a preferential way, the better people to survive.

While mistakes would be sometimes made, most of the time one judges rightly when one puts his mind to it. More often than not, quality is able to prove itself. And some of the choices facing a eugenicist are fairly obvious ones. Don't pick any retarded people for Noah's Ark. Don't let any habitual criminals on board, either. Give standardized performance tests, to evaluate strength, dexterity, sensory acuteness, stamina, and intelligence, and monitor them and the grading so that nobody can cheat.

Again, mistakes will be sometimes made, but a man who aims at his target will more often hit the bullseye than a blindfolded fellow who doesn't know where the target is. Actually, to make the comparison more exact, the blindfolded fellow would have to be unaware that there was even a target, unaware that shooting in a particular direction was more desirable, would result in more points, than just firing off bullets in just any direction that took his fancy.

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: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 05:45:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'I') didn't say that I'd try to build a "perfect" world. I will say, on the other hand, that it's possible to build one much better, and that a good beginning would be helping, in a preferential way, the better people to survive.
You give a very passable impression of trying to build a perfect world, Jerry. I assume that, in principle, everyone in the world can take your tests for suitability in your world? If not, then how do you filter out the bulk of people, once you've taken out the few "obvious" ones? The logical continuation of your strategy is to somehow test all new arrivals into your nearly perfect world, to ensure that the current stock is not diluted.

Good luck with that.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 11:47:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', ' ')I didn't say that I'd try to build a "perfect" world. I will say, on the other hand, that it's possible to build one much better, and that a good beginning would be helping, in a preferential way, the better people to survive.

While mistakes would be sometimes made, most of the time one judges rightly when one puts his mind to it. More often than not, quality is able to prove itself.


So, you don't like nature's way of natural selection as it fails to be preferential? Better to you, is not necessarily the most "fit" to survive.

The Indian never trusted the "White Man;" not so much because he spoke with a forked tongue, but because he appeared to the Indian as quite presumptuous; a quality they never fathomed. How could anyone presume to improve upon Nature?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 13:07:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', ' ')I didn't say that I'd try to build a "perfect" world. I will say, on the other hand, that it's possible to build one much better, and that a good beginning would be helping, in a preferential way, the better people to survive.

While mistakes would be sometimes made, most of the time one judges rightly when one puts his mind to it. More often than not, quality is able to prove itself.


So, you don't like nature's way of natural selection as it fails to be preferential? Better to you, is not necessarily the most "fit" to survive.

The Indian never trusted the "White Man;" not so much because he spoke with a forked tongue, but because he appeared to the Indian as quite presumptuous; a quality they never fathomed. How could anyone presume to improve upon Nature?

I didn't think that I'd need to explain that it is possible for quality to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, for the many of the lesser men to combine to pull down the comparatively few of the higher stocks.

The highest quality, as a general rule, is rare. I suppose that the spectrum of quality falls along a bell curve, or nearly. It will always be possible for subversives (the organized envious) to make the bulk and the trailers sufficiently jealous of their betters to organize under the subversives' auspices: that is what communists do - and communists are generally successful at doing it, unless they are opposed by a counter movement that is as radical and as ruthless as they are.

Once they are organized, the "masses" can be used to pull down the better people and extinguish all high quality by killing them. That's what happens when communists take over a country, and it's also what happens every day on the street when a wolfpack of "underprivileged youths" attack a lone pedestrian whose individual endowments are far superior to theirs.

Weeds will outgrow, and multiply faster than, crops. If a world full of weeds is what you desire, all you have to do is stand by and watch. But if you really want quality, because quality is more important than quantity, then you'll get your hoe and whack away at those weeds before they can choke your grain.

Evolution has had a trend of improving the quality of life across millions of years, but that doesn't mean that this stream is moving always in the same direction. This evolutionary process, when looked at in fine detail, includes local reversals in which a species, now and then, got locked into a "communistic" quantity-beats-quality mode and lost its fine edge in the contest of natural selection.

The triumph of the "common member of the species" is the death warrant for the species entire. Lacking the leadership of its best members, the masses were unfit to lead themselves and overmatched by life's challenges, and so the species became extinct. The environmental niches they had occupied were taken over by other forms of life.

So the success of the "common man" is not a success for the species Homo sapiens. It's a disaster. While evolution may pull some gold out of this fire, it will be somebody else's gold: none of it will be ours.

Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab6 on Sat 24 Jun 2006, 13:36:31, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 13:32:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'S')o the success of the "common man" is not a success for the species Homo sapiens. It's a disaster. While evolution may pull some gold out of this fire, it will be somebody else's gold: none of it will be ours.

Jerry Abbott


Somebody elses gold and none of it will be ours? Can you explain what group you are referring to when you say ours? Americans? White western culture? Chinese entrenepeurs? Indian software engineers? Intelligent people? humble rural folk? Rich people?

Your wanting to create a dichotomy of those that should survive and those "common men" who shouldn't but you are not making yourself clear who or what group you are referring to. Please specify.
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 14:07:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ow could anyone presume to improve upon Nature?

That's why I don't think we should have a large scale population control program. That, and the fact that the people who get to make the decisions are invariably scumbags.

When quantity must go, save quality. If disaster must come, then turn it as much as possible to advantage. For most questions, including who should be preferred for surviving a population bottleneck, there are many wrong answers. But there is only one right answer. However, there IS a right answer, and it's as wrong to pretend that there isn't a right answer as it is to pretend that one of the wrong answers is the right one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'S')o the success of the "common man" is not a success for the species Homo sapiens. It's a disaster. While evolution may pull some gold out of this fire, it will be somebody else's gold: none of it will be ours.

Jerry Abbott


Somebody elses gold and none of it will be ours? Can you explain what group you are referring to when you say ours? Americans? White western culture? Chinese entrenepeurs? Indian software engineers? Intelligent people? humble rural folk? Rich people?

Your wanting to create a dichotomy of those that should survive and those "common men" who shouldn't but you are not making yourself clear who or what group you are referring to. Please specify.

When I said "ours," I was referring to whichever group happens to be facing choice of favoring excellence, on the one hand, or the empowerment of the masses, on the other. The latter feels better and seems more "morally right," but it is, in fact, the error that kills the group involved, whether it be a country, a race, or a species.

In order to exist, a subversive niche doesn't have to be sustainable. It only has to offer advantages for those who occupy it. A repetition of a niche doesn't require any communication from the past, genetic or otherwise. The conditions that created it once may create it again, much later, among a different race or species, when a subversive element among them notices that subversion has become possible.

The dichotomy I was creating wasn't between urban and rural, or between humble and arrogant, or between rich and poor. It was, rather, between groups in whom heritable virtues are conspicuous and groups in whom those virtues are lacking.

Between 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.

Between those having many of the above (and other) virtues and those having few of them, I favor those having many.

I favor competitive contest as the means by which to sift the grain from the chaff, assorting them into classes of overall excellence.

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: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 14:47:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'W')hen I said "ours," I was referring to whichever group happens to be facing choice of favoring excellence, on the one hand, or the empowerment of the masses, on the other. The latter feels better and seems more "morally right," but it is, in fact, the error that kills the group involved, whether it be a country, a race, or a species.

Mass democracy is a premier example of that error. It seems sound from an egalitarian moral perspective, but it has the "common man" flaw that eventually kills nations, whose demise is staved off only insofar as democratic ideals are frustrated.

Suppose a person's body were organized democratically, on the "one cell, one vote" basis. Before you know it, some invading germ has started pleading for tolerance, even as his cohorts roam the cardiovascular byways, the arteries and the veins, looking for host cells to prey upon. Subversives among the invaders begin casting out political questions that pit "the brain" against "the rest of the body, the downtrodden non-brain cells." The immune system is infiltrated and subverted, and it begins making antibodies that target brain cells for death...

That's how what might seem a boon to the masses is in reality a poisonous, if addictive, idea. The masses can't lead themselves - any leaders who rose from among them would be among them no longer; in fact, that's what their former leadership did, until the masses killed them off. Once the natural, native brains are gone, the subversive takes over. Once the proletariat has risen and removed the Tsar, the Bolsheviks rise and shove the proles into collective farms and trains bound for Siberia.

And the subversive's goal isn't the health of the host people. His intention is to exploit them until they die, or nearly, and then seek new prey.

Those wise enough to lead can see where mass democracy goes and can understand that the democratic system is therefore something that should be avoided. The masses, however, can't see this and demand their bit of empowerment, while loudly denying its ultimate lethality.

Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab6 on Sat 24 Jun 2006, 14:56:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postby SoothSayer » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 14:55:12

Once they are organized, the "masses" can be used to pull down the better people and extinguish all high quality by killing them.
Jenab6, I assume you place yourself in the elite "better" group?
Technology will save us!
User avatar
SoothSayer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: England
Top

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 15:03:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', '[')b]Once they are organized, the "masses" can be used to pull down the better people and extinguish all high quality by killing them.

Jenab6, I assume you place yourself in the elite "better" group?

You can assume whatever you wish, of course. I won't answer your question because it contains an incorrect implicit assumption.

The assumption is: nobody can see beyond his own interests.

Or, rephrased: anybody who claims that something ought to be done in a certain way expects to profit from it.

Or, rephrased again: whatever appears to be virtue is really selfishness wearing a disguise.

However you phrase it, it's wrong.

In fact, it can happen that a correct assessment of "what ought to be done" can come from someone whose interests would be served by the doing of it. Using "cui bono" as a means of finding culpability might be a useful rule of thumb, but it shouldn't be construed as a logical necessity.

Especially: since the elite of a race are precisely those people who can see most clearly into the nature of things, into cause and effect relationships, the ways in which the present reflects the past, and so on, it's likely that the best advice for the race will come from those who would be best served by its being heeded.

The self-serving nature of advice that comes, during a crisis, from everyone offering advice isn't a guide to the wisdom to be found in it. There usually is a right answer, or if not a right answer then at least a best answer, and that answer might be supplied by someone who will benefit from its use.

Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab6 on Sat 24 Jun 2006, 15:33:21, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postby SoothSayer » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 15:19:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', '[')b]Once they are organized, the "masses" can be used to pull down the better people and extinguish all high quality by killing them.

Jenab6, I assume you place yourself in the elite "better" group?

You can assume whatever you wish, of course. I won't answer your question because it contains an incorrect implicit assumption.

The assumption is: nobody can see beyond his own interests.

Or, rephrased: anybody who claims that something ought to be done in a certain way expects to profit from it.

Or, rephrased again: whatever appears to be virtue is really selfishness wearing a disguise.

However you phrase it, it's wrong.

In fact, it can happen that a correct assessment of "what ought to be done" can come from someone whose interests would be served by the doing of it. Using "cui bono" as a means of finding culpability might be a useful rule of thumb, but it should be construed as a logical necessity.

Especially: since the elite of a race are precisely those people who can see most clearly into the nature of things, into cause and effect relationships, the ways in which the present reflects the past, and so on, it's likely that the best advice for the race will come from those who would be best served by its being heeded.

Jerry Abbott


You certainly have a way with words!

I'll intuit that as being a YES, you are one of the elite ... although I do indeed agree that you could have been prepared to answer NO.

I think that you have indicated in other posts that you are not that keen on Jewish people ... or in fact anyone of a non-white hue.

A rather unattractive pattern is emerging here I think ...
Technology will save us!
User avatar
SoothSayer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: England
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TheTurtle » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 15:29:45

$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?
“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" solution to peak o

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 15:29:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', 'I') think that you have indicated in other posts that you are not that keen on Jewish people ... or in fact anyone of a non-white hue. A rather unattractive pattern is emerging here I think ...

Unattractive and incorrect don't mean the same thing. If I can be right, I don't care who thinks the truth is ugly.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 17:13:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'T')he highest quality, as a general rule, is rare.
But, Jerry, you consistently fail to define "quality". You seem to have some idea of what it is but maybe it is an entirely subjective idea. You feel that we need better "quality" stock for the new world but have absolutely no idea how to measure it except maybe by skin colour (which I hope you can see is utterly wrong). If there is no way of measuring quality objectively then just forget it.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'O')nce they are organized, the "masses" can be used to pull down the better people and extinguish all high quality by killing them.
So much for your high quality, then. You have just effectively killed your own argument. Clearly, if this happened, what you thought of as higher quality was no such thing. The fact that quantity was a factor is completely irrelevant.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'W')eeds will outgrow, and multiply faster than, crops.
This is a subjective view. You seem to think that, what you see as, "weeds" are inferior. Clearly they are not, if they can grow and spread more easily than other crops. Clearly "weeds" are a superior plant. In fact, weeds are just plants that are growing in an area you'd rather they didn't grow. The term "weed" is subjective, just as "quality", in your world, is subjective.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 21:03:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'E')volution has had a trend of improving the quality of life across millions of years, but that doesn't mean that this stream is moving always in the same direction. This evolutionary process, when looked at in fine detail, includes local reversals in which a species, now and then, got locked into a "communistic" quantity-beats-quality mode and lost its fine edge in the contest of natural selection.


Oh, but it is always in the same direction. That direction being that individuals with random genetic mutations that promote reproduction and survival are selected, and over time, the species evolves.

Natural selection is about "survivability to reproduce" in a changing environment. Quantity, now and then, nevers trumps millions of years of evolution from natural selection.

You confuse the "struggle for survival" with the "survival of the fittest." They are two entirely different beasts.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat 24 Jun 2006, 21:21:17, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 21:12:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab6', 'E')volution has had a trend of improving the quality of life across millions of years
No it doesn't. In writing this, you completely misunderstand the evolutionary process.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 21:13:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ') You seem to think that, what you see as, "weeds" are inferior. Clearly they are not, if they can grow and spread more easily than other crops. Clearly "weeds" are a superior plant.


My point exactly. Given a free hand, weeds would overcome any monoculture as they are more fit for survival. Says a lot about how tenuous the few cereal grains are in our food supply.

Jenab,

Let's get off this supremacist tangent and back on topic. Ok? Now, not later...or I will split the thread.
MQ
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sun 25 Jun 2006, 10:34:34

TonyPrep and MonteQuest each made about the same argument, to the effect that quality is whatever survives and nevermind what the winner can or can't do with his life after he has won. That is, whether civil relations are better than brute savagery depends on whether the civil or the savages are left when the fighting is over.

Neither Tony nor Monty recognizes that there is a difference between winning a struggle and being able to foresee and deal with trouble after the immediate struggle has been won.

I'll contrive an example. Pardon it for being so off-the-shelf.

Suppose that three lifeboats from a sunken ship are adrift in the ocean, each of them overloaded with passengers and taking on water from the choppy sea. Let's stipulate that they are no longer in communication or within sight of each other. In order for anyone from each lifeboat to be saved, some of its passengers must be pitched overboard.

In Lifeboat #1, this tossing of people into the ocean is so vigorously opposed that it cannot be done. The people who see the need to do it haven't the strength required. Further, these wiser people are too few to save the others in the boat by jumping overboard themselves. This lifeboat will sink, and everyone in it will die.

In Lifeboat #2, the people who wouldn't jump are saved only because the people who would, did. Jumping was a volunteer thing, and it turned out that the jumpers lightened the boat enough that it could stay afloat.

In Lifeboat #3, the people who recognized the need for someone to GO identified the least valuable passengers in the boat and pitched them to the sharks.

All three boats had outcomes in accord with natural selection, the main evolutionary operation. The different outcomes are the result of different initial conditions.

The outcome for Lifeboat #1 was immediate extinction.

The outcome for Lifeboat #2 was near-term survival, however with a genetic step in the direction of extinction.

Although the survivors from Lifeboat #2 did nothing except pursue their individual self-interest, they were selected for being selfish, and the average for selfishness among them is now higher than it was before the shipwreck. The survivors from this boat will pass along their selfishness to their offspring, and, down the generations, the next time a heroic and selfless act is needed to save the group, there's less chance that the necessary heroes will appear. That is, the next time the scion from this stock finds itself adrift at sea, they will probably be in Lifeboat #1.

The outcome for Lifeboat #3 was survival and genetic improvement.

The survivors from Lifeboat #3 will have the "best" genes overall, and their descendants will inherit better qualities than those of Lifeboat #2. Not 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.

Now, let's add another idea.

Suppose we consider a mistake that those in Lifeboat #3 might have made. Who is the one person aboard that boat who should never be considered Shark Food? The navigator. Without someone aboard who can find his way by the sun and stars, the boat will probably never find its way to land before the food runs out and everybody starves. If any egalitarian impulse toward "equality" is entertained, e.g. if the decision of whom to toss is made by drawing lots wherein no one is exempted, the passengers further jeopardize themselves, since the navigator is necessary to the survival of everyone else.

Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab6 on Sun 25 Jun 2006, 11:15:24, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jenab6 » Sun 25 Jun 2006, 10:44:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ') You seem to think that, what you see as, "weeds" are inferior. Clearly they are not, if they can grow and spread more easily than other crops. Clearly "weeds" are a superior plant.


My point exactly. Given a free hand, weeds would overcome any monoculture as they are more fit for survival. Says a lot about how tenuous the few cereal grains are in our food supply.

Jenab,

Let's get off this supremacist tangent and back on topic. Ok? Now, not later...or I will split the thread.
MQ

It wasn't a "supremacist tangent" until someone else made it one. I've been at pains to avoid cooperating with this someone else's efforts to turn it into one. And I didn't see that post of yours until I'd already replied to earlier posts.

In regard to weeds and grains, however: We are a force of natural selection, albeit a conscious one. What we do is what nature does through us. If we do one thing, the universe gains a higher degree or state of consciousness. If we do something else, the universe takes a plunge and falls to a lower degree or state of consciousness. It's a question of whether the universe will have more or less self-recognition than it has had heretofore.

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

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests