Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Science => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on November 18, 2015, 11:38:15 pm
-
Half of world’s Muslims are inbred due to generations of incest
Posted on July 18, 2015 by Dr. Eowyn
Here’s an explanation for Islamic terrorism that’s never proffered:
Insanity and Stupidity
A never-spoken-about problem with Muslims is their inbreeding as a result of their long and deeply-ingrained practice of marrying first cousins
....
“If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage.”
The problem is made worse by generational inbreeding. As Woolas put it, “Many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages.” That would explain why research for BBC2’s Newsnight in November 2005 showed that British Pakistanis accounted for 3.4% of all births but 30% of all British children with recessive genetic disorders.
....
According to Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into Muslim inbreeding, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred:
70% of Pakistanis are inbred.
67% of Saudi Arabians are inbred.
64% of those living in Jordan and Kuwait are inbred.
63% of Sudanese are inbred.
60% of Iraqis are inbred.
54% of Muslims in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are inbred.
25-30% of those in Turkey are inbred.
In England, at least 55% of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins.
In Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.
....
Sennels warns that massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to Muslims’ intelligence, sanity, and health. (Similar effects were seen in the Pharaonic dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)
....
Below are the consequences of inbreeding:
1. Birth and birth defects:
100% increase in the risk of stillbirths.
50% increase in the risk that the child dies during labor.
The risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher.
The risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher.
2. Physical and mental retardation and illnesses:
The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of mental and physical retardation and schizophrenic illness.
The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness, i.e., insanity.
Social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. An academic paper published in the Indian National Science Academy found that “the onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.”
Research shows that if one’s parents are cousins, intelligence goes down 10-16 IQ points. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as “retarded,” increases by 400% among children of cousin marriages.
....
All of which would explain the following phenomena among Muslims (Source: Nicolai Sennels):
1 out of every 3 Somalis are mentally ill.
More than 40% of the patients in Denmark‘s biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant (i.e., Muslim) background.
One-third of all handicapped people in Copenhagen have a “foreign” (i.e., Muslim) background.
In Denmark, psychologist Sennels’ native country, “non-Western” immigrants (who are mainly Muslim) are more than 300% more likely to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish army.
In Denmark, Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education.
64% of school children with Arabic parents in Denmark are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.
The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, “One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.”
Muslims’ average lower IQ means a lowered ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking, which would explain why:
The Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does. In the last 1,200 years years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year.
7 out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.
Only 9 Muslims had ever won the Nobel Prize, and 5 of those 9 were for the “Peace Prize.”
According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10% of the world average when it comes to scientific research (measured by articles per million inhabitants).
Sennels concludes:
The troubling reality being referred to is the widespread practice of Muslim inbreeding and the birth defects and social ills that it spawns.
The tragic effect of the Left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about vital issues such as these marks an individual as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.”
A person who dares to point at the pathology of inbreeding in the Muslim community is accused of whipping up hatred against Muslim people.
But all of this could not be further from the truth. To fight against inbreeding anywhere is to defend humanity and to defend innocent babies from birth defects….
Let us keep in mind that Muslims are the first — though maybe not the biggest — victims of Islam….
In fact, it is the Left’s callous silence on this issue (and on so many others) that exposes who is truly “anti-Muslim.”
~Éowyn
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/18/half-of-worlds-muslims-are-inbred-due-to-generations-of-incest/ (http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/18/half-of-worlds-muslims-are-inbred-due-to-generations-of-incest/)
I think mature scientific minded raw paleo dieters will be able to discuss the scientific and statistical merits here.
-
I would like to comment on this much later today as it does have some interesting scientific points(and misses a lot about severe inbreeding in various non-Muslim ethnic groups), but I would like to point out that the way this article is depicted seems to indicate that this is just another unsubtle NeoCon propaganda tool to make Westerners hate Muslims even more so that the very reluctant UK MPs finally decide to bomb Isis etc. I do not like being manipulated by the media.
-
Stick to the science and statistics. It is what it is.
I will put up a youtube special.
And many youtube videos.
This is a legitimate topic.
No P.C. censorship please.
No to anti-intellectualism.
No to anti-science... this is the science forum.... members only.
Here is a short research paper:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm (http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm)
-
Pakistani Migrants in the UK, majority are inbred.
It is their tradition.
The interviewer and narrator is Pakistani herself and is inbred herself.
PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2w4zAken08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2w4zAken08)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2w4zAken08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2w4zAken08)
PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_iAgP84cw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_iAgP84cw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_iAgP84cw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_iAgP84cw)
PART 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMfaZ-r6ec (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMfaZ-r6ec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMfaZ-r6ec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMfaZ-r6ec)
PART 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-moJXZovY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-moJXZovY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-moJXZovY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB-moJXZovY)
-
Stick to the science and statistics. It is what it is.
Statistics can be made up. It's not always what it is.
https://pjrvs.com/a/stats
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Mark Twain
*disclaimer: not saying these particular statistics are made up, but I am against the idea of "Science is Science" and "Stats are Stats", because in our human world it is only so true*
-
Arabs have higher IQs than africans, so what's the explanation for that?
Different groups in different areas evolved different bodies to excel in different environments. The brain is part of the body.
-
Statistics can be made up. It's not always what it is.
https://pjrvs.com/a/stats
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Mark Twain
*disclaimer: not saying these particular statistics are made up, but I am against the idea of "Science is Science" and "Stats are Stats", because in our human world it is only so true*
And this is why I gave you guys the channel 4 special above. Watch.
A program narrated and hosted by a woman who herself is inbred coming from the same inbred culture she is presenting, and she presented both adherents and those who are waking up to the stats of the national health service because their own children were inbred disasters.
-
There was a pathetic documentary on the BBC in the 1990s with a Pakistani Muslim woman actually defending incest and pretending that incest did not lead to greater chances of genetic defects. Given that the BBC was leftwing, it naturally would be in favour of the unnatural practice of incest, given that the only way to counter such resulting defects is some form of eugenics, a rather politically-incorrect subject. I suppose the retarded leftwing notion is that the practice of eugenics might lead to everyone eventually becoming blue-eyed blondes, a particularly stupid, paranoid notion. Yet (Libertarian) eugenics could actually benefit all Mankind in very beneficial ways.
Just looked online at the daily mail:-"While British Pakistanis account for three per cent of the births in this country, they are responsible for 33 per cent of the 15,000 to 20,000 children born each year with genetic defects. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html#ixzz3rseEkBaB (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html#ixzz3rseEkBaB)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
also:- http://en.europenews.dk/-Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society-78170.html (http://en.europenews.dk/-Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society-78170.html)
Inbreeding, incidentally, does little harm PROVIDED that those with deleterious genes are weeded out constantly either by Mother Nature or by humans. In the Palaeolithic era, due to natural selection and the practice of mass infanticide, any even slightly dodgy children would have died long before they could breed, thus enabling swifter evolution than otherwise as the best dna would have been encouraged to be passed on instead.
However, as soon as one does not filter out those with defective genes, enormous problems start, with lower IQ, greater instances of insanity and poorer health(eg:- lower immune-systems etc. One only has to look at the phenomenon of the Habsburg Lip to see cases in point.
One thing to point out:- it would be fallacious to suggest that only Muslims are inbred. There are plenty of other ethnic groups which are severely inbred. Icelanders are rather inbred but do not seem to have a high rate of genetic defects, suggesting that the harsh climate etc. there over the millenia regularly wiped out those with defective genes. Indeed, here this article shows a benefit for inbreeding in Iceland provided one only intermixes with third cousins, no closer or farther than that:-
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128&page=1)
I vaguely recall a study I read that showed that the best reproductive combination was between people who were between either 3rd cousins or 9th(7th?) cousins removed. Anything closer or further than that led to a decline in reproductive health of some sort. Admittedly, I do not remember where I saw the paper.
Many other groups such as the Alawites in Syria or the Yazidis are inbred to some extent and the extreme Mormon Fundamentalists of the FLDS(though not the more mainstream, less fanatical Mormon Fundamentalists like the AUB). I would imagine(?) that the Yazidi minority are particularly inbred since their religion forbids them on pain of death to marry outside their small religious faith.
The Amish in the US also have a lot of genetic defects, including some not found in other populations, as I recall:-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetic-disorders-hit-amish-hard/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetic-disorders-hit-amish-hard/)
Then there are the Ashkenazi Jews who appear to be rather inbred, given that the Talmud also tolerates incestuous marriages between uncles and nieces as well as the usual first cousins. They have several unique genetic diseases specific to Ashkenazis and have a higher prevalence as regards some other diseases like Parkinson's etc.:-
http://www.momentmag.com/genetics/ (http://www.momentmag.com/genetics/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_incest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_incest)
Seppahrdic and Mizrahi Jews also have a heightened prevalence for certain genetic diseases:-
http://www.jewishgeneticdiseases.org/jewish-genetic-diseases/ (http://www.jewishgeneticdiseases.org/jewish-genetic-diseases/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews)
-
Geoff, try researching hybrid vigor.
-
Geoff, try researching hybrid vigor.
I already did such long ago. You should research outbreeding depression which covers the negative aspects:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression
For example:- "As a general rule of thumb, hybrid vigor (another way of saying a reduction of inbreeding depression) is strongest in first generation hybrids and gets weaker over time. In contrast, outbreeding depression can be relatively weak in the first generation. Unless there is strong selective pressure, outbreeding depression will increase in power through the further generations as co-adapted gene complexes are broken apart without the forging of new co-adapted gene complexes to take their place."
Back to the original subject of incest:-
"
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.[188] In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%,[189] while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%.[3] Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30." Interesting, even first-time first-cousin marriages are slightly a worse idea, though not as bad as 20 generations or more of first-cousin marriages, of course.
GS, out of curiosity, what do Filipinos think of first-cousin marriage? Used to be all the rage in Europe until 1900(?), last I checked. I wonder why it became frowned on, morally speaking? I somehow doubt that it was mostly due to people heeding modern scientific data.
-
IOW, race-mixing has both positive and negative effects, not that I care much. Us mixed Americans are far more attractive, on average, than you hideous inbred Brits. LOL
-
IOW, race-mixing has both positive and negative effects, not that I care much.
No, that was not the point, you misinterpreted it. The point in the quotation was that hybrid vigor occurs in its strongest form in the first generation of intermixture and then gets weaker and weaker with each subsequent generation(such as mules having some advantages over both horses and donkeys for example) , with outbreeding depression becoming ever more common in later generations "unless there is strong selective pressure". Strong selective pressure, such as natural selection or eugenics is not the case today, so that means that outbreeding depression gets worse and worse after each subsequent generation after admixture.
Whatever the case, there are now so many online studies and government statistics showing greater levels of mental and physical health-problems in mixed-race children compared to others, that the PC hybrid vigor theory is rather discredited.
Another point:- scientists do not actually view hybrid vigor as being a positive thing per se, and even consider it quite wrong to promote it as being any sign of (human or otherwise) genetic superiority:-
"First, according to an article published in the journal Genome Biology, "genetic superiority" is an ill-defined term and not generally accepted terminology within the scientific field of genetics.[8] A related term fitness is well defined, but it can rarely be directly measured. Instead, scientists use objective, measurable quantities, such as the number of seeds a plant produces, the germination rate of a seed, or the percentage of organisms that survive to reproductive age.[9] From this perspective, crossbred plants and animals exhibiting heterosis may have "superior" traits, but this does not necessarily equate to any evidence of outright "genetic superiority". Use of the term "superiority" is commonplace for example in crop breeding, where it is well understood to mean a better-yielding, more robust plant for agriculture. Such a plant may yield better on a farm, but would likely struggle to survive in the wild , making this use open to misinterpretation. In human genetics any question of "genetic superiority" is even more problematic due to the historical and political implications of any such claim. Some may even go as far as to describe it as a questionable value judgement in the realm of politics, not science. [8]"
As for the hypocritical comment re inbred Brits, unlike the US, we do not have lots of inbred populations within the US. You lot have the Appallachians where inbreeding was endemic. Then there are the Amish, the Mormon Fundamentalists(even mainstream Mormons come from a tiny group of immigrants). Then west Virginia, Wisconsin, east Kentucky, and the Deep South all have a notorious reputation for inbreeding.
Indeed so inbred are Americans that you even have had blue (!) people in Kentucky:-
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/blue-skinned-people-kentucky-reveal-todays-genetic-lesson/story?id=15759819 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/blue-skinned-people-kentucky-reveal-todays-genetic-lesson/story?id=15759819)
Admittedly, accusations of incest are meaningless since we are all descended from tiny numbers of people in the Palaeolithic era.
Back to the original subject of incest after the recent, absurd desperate attempt to change the subject by the other poster:-
According to Professor Robin Fox of Rutgers University, it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.[9]
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss)
Interesting point there. Obviously incest was more prevalent in palaeo times etc. than thought.
-
So these studies of mixed-race children's supposed higher rate of health problems....do they take confounding variables into account? I bet they're missing some important confounding variables, Mr. Schicklgruber.
-
One point re the Somalis.I always recall one of my relatives telling me that the native Kenyans hated the Somalis because so many Somali bandits kept on raiding Kenya in the last couple of decades. Not proof of anything but....
-
So these studies of mixed-race children's supposed higher rate of health problems....do they take confounding variables into account? I bet they're missing some important confounding variables, Mr. Schicklgruber.
This is not just a question of countless scientific studies but also of US government statistics.But, never mind, obviously, it obviously does not matter to you how numerous or how solid the evidence is....
Anyway, stop trolling the thread, the very fact that you are still using the reductio ad hiterum card means you have no case to answer so are just trying to censor me in desperation. This thread is about incest, not anything else, also.
-
IOW, the confounding variables are entirely responsible for these problems. That's what I thought.
-
The Amish in this feature are also having problems with inbreeding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAJDQ_SgDk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAJDQ_SgDk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAJDQ_SgDk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eAJDQ_SgDk)
GS, out of curiosity, what do Filipinos think of first-cousin marriage? Used to be all the rage in Europe until 1900(?), last I checked. I wonder why it became frowned on, morally speaking? I somehow doubt that it was mostly due to people heeding modern scientific data.
Islamic Filipinos by virtue of their religion are okay with first cousin marriage.
The rest of the Filipinos abhor first cousin marriages... it is even in the law of the land.
Most Filipinos abhor 2nd cousin marriages... there was a big public uproar when the President's son married his 2nd cousin. People wanted to know if that was legal, it was legal, but still a public no no.
There are some anonymous posters on discussion forums inquiring about cousin marriage, and usually the responses are YUCK! and possibility of Genetic Defects and Stupidity... I even read a guy who has worked in the Arab countries and he said there are lots of ABNORMAL / retarded people there because they married their first cousins... yuck!
As a parent I would be pretty much pissed if my children had babies with my brother's children. For me, 1st cousin and 2nd cousin is an absolute no no. I would be pissed to see my great grand children having children together.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0)
Quran 64:3 "He created the heavens and the earth with truth, and He shaped you and made good your shapes, and unto Him is the journeying."
Stillbirths and birth defects are the biggest killer of muslims daily, this video investigates the root causes of this global phenomena, links for further reading...
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-in-drive-to-curb-endogamy-2015-01-15-1.576665 (http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-in-drive-to-curb-endogamy-2015-01-15-1.576665)
Link for BBC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm)
Center for Arab Genomic Studies
http://www.cags.org.ae/FMPro?-DB=ctga.fp5&-Format=ctga/ctga_detail.html&-RecID=33888&-Find (http://www.cags.org.ae/FMPro?-DB=ctga.fp5&-Format=ctga/ctga_detail.html&-RecID=33888&-Find)
Oxford Study
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/suppl_1/D602.full (http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/suppl_1/D602.full)
Pakistani Birth defects
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html)
Nicolai Sennals Reports
http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368/ (http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368/)
http://dcgazette.com/muslim-inbreeding-may-genetic-catastrophe/ (http://dcgazette.com/muslim-inbreeding-may-genetic-catastrophe/)
Tribune report
http://tribune.com.pk/story/572403/cousin-marriage-doubles-gene-risk-for-babies-study/ (http://tribune.com.pk/story/572403/cousin-marriage-doubles-gene-risk-for-babies-study/)
Lancet report
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736%2891%2990078-4/fulltext (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736%2891%2990078-4/fulltext)
-
I do not think it is a disaster if first cousins marry just the once, it just makes fertility/defects slightly bigger problems. But it is obviously a really bad idea for this to happen more often than once every 10-20 generations or so, without some weeding out of defective genes.
What intrigues me is that Icelandic study I found which stated that the best possible genetic combination is between 3rd cousins, and that pairings between couples who are either closer or farther than that tend to be increasingly less effective. This was a study of an island where, technically, people are already pretty inbred, yet, unlike with many other inbred populations, there are no unique Icelandic genetic diseases or whatever. It seems, therefore, that the best solution is to marry distant but not close relatives - as long as those with defective genes are not able to breed(eg:- village-idiots) one might expect much better descendants in the future.
*Fascinating*. I did some more checking just to make sure and it turns out that Icelandic peoples do indeed have at least one genetic defect, my mistake:-
http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/icelands-deadly-disease-mystery/ (http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/icelands-deadly-disease-mystery/)
The most interesting part is here:- "But why did life spans not start decreasing until the early to mid-19th century, when records show that this mutation had been present among Icelanders since the 17th century? What changed for the people of Iceland? The answer may lie in their diet. The researchers noticed that, prior to the 19th century, the diet of Icelanders consisted mostly of whey-preserved offal (animal entrails and organs) as well as meat, dried fish, and butter. In other words, a diet low in carbohydrates and salt. However, post-19th century, imports from mainland Europe increased dramatically, and a typical Icelandic diet began incorporating processed carbohydrates and salt (to preserve food). The researchers argue that the movement of imports from Reykjavik to more isolated regions in Iceland throughout the 19th century mirrors the appearance and spread of HCCAA symptoms. As these new kinds of foods spread from the capital to smaller towns and villages, the deadly symptoms of HCCAA did as well. Therefore, it appears that the traditional Icelandic diet ‘masked’ the deadly symptoms of HCCAA, and it wasn’t until they began to eat more processed foods, higher in carbohydrates and salt, that these ‘masking’ effects diminished.
Read more at http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/icelands-deadly-disease-mystery/#kuvWCrVoVOJe0rjh.99 (http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/icelands-deadly-disease-mystery/#kuvWCrVoVOJe0rjh.99) "
This is an amazing piece as it confirms what I had suggested a while back as a strong possibility on this forum. It seems that a more unprocessed, more unnatural diet can make formerly harmless particular genetic combinations or mutations suddenly far more harmful than before. I reckon, therefore, that if a couple who had been at least 2-3 years or more on a mostly-rawpalaeodiet/wholly-rawpalaeodiet were to have children, that the percentage-chances of the children getting any overt genetic defects would be much smaller than the chance of a standard-cooked-diet-eating couple getting genetic defects. This also implies that, as more and more couples turn to ever-more-processed, more unnatural diets, that their children will get ever greater chances of genetic defects over the generations, with fertility dropping as well.
Hmm, a standard googling for "rise in birth-defects" shows the following:-
https://www.rt.com/usa/rural-washington-birth-defects-445/ (https://www.rt.com/usa/rural-washington-birth-defects-445/)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-105629/Women-urged-curb-lifestyles-birth-defects-rise.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-105629/Women-urged-curb-lifestyles-birth-defects-rise.html)
http://news.nationalpost.com/health/rise-in-birth-defects-may-be-caused-by-ivf-other-high-tech-fertility-treatments-u-k-study (http://news.nationalpost.com/health/rise-in-birth-defects-may-be-caused-by-ivf-other-high-tech-fertility-treatments-u-k-study)
http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-obgyn/content/tags/birth-defect/rise-abdominal-birth-defect-among-newborns?page=full (http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-obgyn/content/tags/birth-defect/rise-abdominal-birth-defect-among-newborns?page=full)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm)
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/could-hawaiis-increase-birth-defects-be-linked-pesticides-sprayed-gmo-crops (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/could-hawaiis-increase-birth-defects-be-linked-pesticides-sprayed-gmo-crops)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-rauch/traffic-pollution-linked-_b_3225148.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-rauch/traffic-pollution-linked-_b_3225148.html)
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/these-antidepressants-may-increase-risk-birth-defects (http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/these-antidepressants-may-increase-risk-birth-defects)
This science of epigenetics is most fascinating. There has already been a study showing that grandchildren of smokers have a higher risk of getting asthma even if neither the grandchildren nor their parents smoke. I was fond of Lamarck's theory re the offspring of animals no longer growing tails if their parents' tails were cut off, and was rather disappointed to find this notion to be wrong, but Lamarck was dead right in stating that the environment could influence future offspring at least as regards environment changing genetic expression.
-
There was obviously a LOT of inbreeding in hunter-gatherer tribes. They didn't seem to have a problem with it. The rate of genetic destruction is also important. I think the main reason to avoid inbreeding from a genetic standpoint is that if one has a gene that has been destroyed or mutated to the point of being unfit, and then the other has the same also, that can be a problem. But if one of the two has the gene in it's healthy form, the offspring will tend to take on the healthy one. Obviously, in modern life, our DNA is damaged and mutated much more frequently than it was in paleo hunter-gatherer tribes.
I think also, another factor is the degree of inbreeding. The more intense it is, and the more you do it, the more chances for a higher number of destroyed or mutated genes to get passed on, and the mutations add up. Continually breeding fathers with daughters and siblings together for many generations will produce this sort of problem.
There's other reasons to avoid inbreeding, from a cultural and socioeconomic standpoint. Those are the same reasons to avoid polygamy, and to avoid tribal unions while supporting family unions.
-
So these studies of mixed-race children's supposed higher rate of health problems....do they take confounding variables into account? I bet they're missing some important confounding variables, Mr. Schicklgruber.
Genetic clusters have evolved over many generations to work best with the same genetic clusters that they have bred with over those many generations. Races do best when not mixed. Try mixing a polar bear with a grizzly, and see what happens. Minor mixing is less likely to create problems. For example, mixing brits with italians, or something like that. But mix brits with japanese, and you have more problems. Likewise, the japanese do well when mixed with koreans, but not so much when mixed with south africans.
When you mix races, you're exposing genes to other genes that they have not come in contact with for thousands of generations. They're not as well suited to working together with each other.
-
Genetic clusters have evolved over many generations to work best with the same genetic clusters that they have bred with over those many generations. Races do best when not mixed. Try mixing a polar bear with a grizzly, and see what happens. Minor mixing is less likely to create problems. For example, mixing brits with italians, or something like that. But mix brits with japanese, and you have more problems. Likewise, the japanese do well when mixed with koreans, but not so much when mixed with south africans.
When you mix races, you're exposing genes to other genes that they have not come in contact with for thousands of generations. They're not as well suited to working together with each other.
What about recessive genes that cause disease only when paired with another version of that gene? Such diseases are much less common among mixed-race people.
-
Geoff-you're conflating epigenetic problems, like asthma in smoking families, with genetic problems. There's no evidence that good diet prevents GENETIC defects from being passed down. Good diet almost certainly does reduce some inheritable problems with EPIGENETICS, though. Although I'd argue that asthma is actually an adaptive response to a smoke-filled environment. It reduces the total amount of smoke going to your lungs (while reducing the oxygen as well, too bad).
-
What about recessive genes that cause disease only when paired with another version of that gene? Such diseases are much less common among mixed-race people.
I'm not sure I believe in those.
-
Geoff-you're conflating epigenetic problems, like asthma in smoking families, with genetic problems. There's no evidence that good diet prevents GENETIC defects from being passed down. Good diet almost certainly does reduce some inheritable problems with EPIGENETICS, though. Although I'd argue that asthma is actually an adaptive response to a smoke-filled environment. It reduces the total amount of smoke going to your lungs (while reducing the oxygen as well, too bad).
I was only referring to epigenetics influencing genetic expression so as to nullify or minimise a bad genetic effect, not full removal of the actual gene.
-
I'm not sure I believe in those.
Sickle-cell anemia in humans? How about cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs? Come on.
-
What about recessive genes that cause disease only when paired with another version of that gene? Such diseases are much less common among mixed-race people.
The point is that each ethnic group has via lengthy inbreeding plus selection-pressure/natural selection achieved a large number of unique benefits and disadvantages for itself due to specific combinations of certain genes. Once admixture occurs between 2 different ethnic groups, both the benefits and the disadvantages of either ethnic group would presumably be lost in the mixed-race individual.
-
The point is that each ethnic group has via lengthy inbreeding plus selection-pressure/natural selection achieved a large number of unique benefits and disadvantages for itself due to specific combinations of certain genes. Once admixture occurs between 2 different ethnic groups, both the benefits and the disadvantages of either ethnic group would presumably be lost in the mixed-race individual.
What you're missing is that race-mixing is a good strategy in an environment where no humans ever did any evolving, like the Americas. And you're overstating the degree to which ANY race is suited to cold climates and high latitudes. Even Scandanavians and Inuits can easily freeze to death in cold-enough weather. Humans are still a species that prefers and needs warm temperatures. Granted, gingers with pale skin and freckles are well-adapted to low light, but they still are unsuited to cold weather.
-
Sickle-cell anemia in humans? How about cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs? Come on.
I said I don't know if I believe those are caused by so-called "recessive genes".
-
I said I don't know if I believe those are caused by so-called "recessive genes".
If they're not caused by recessive genes, then why do they show up pretty much entirely in specific populations, speaking mainly of sickle cell? It's not environmental, because sickle cell is only found in Black populations, and it is found in Black populations wherever they are in the world.
I don't even understand what you're disputing. That genetic diseases exist? If they don't exist, then why do some members of a population get them, but not others? Speaking specifically of populations in a common environment, on a similar diet.
This is settled science. You can buy lab mice with any one of many different genetic diseases, or none at all. How much those diseases express themselves depends on environment, but they are still there.
-
I really don't understand why I have to explain this stuff. High school biology, common sense, Google, and a healthy curiosity should have made questions like this unnecessary.
-
Redhaired Neanderthals were well-suited to cold weather in the Ice-Age. Also, adaptation to different climates is only one tiny aspect of the evolution of different ethnic groups. For example, Caucasians are not really adapted to the cold, while East Asians/Orientals are actually the best adapted to cold environments. Indeed, there is a stronger alternative explanation for Caucasian origins which is the sexual selection theory:-
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0301446021000019144 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0301446021000019144)
Let's give another example:- Caucasians get cystic fibrosis if they get 2 faulty chromosomes of the relevant gene, if they get only one copy of that CF gene, they are better protected against tuberculosis, apparently. Africans get sickle-cell anaemia if they get 2 copies of the relevant faulty gene, but get better protected against malaria if they have only one such copy. A mixed-race hybrid, half-black/half-white, would, in theory on average, have only a 50% chance of getting either sickle-cell anaemia or cystic fibrosis, having c.50% genes from the black and white parents respectively each, but would also be 50% less likely to be better protected against malaria or tuberculosis. So such a mixed-race hybrid would now be exposed to two instead of one ethnic disease, albeit at a halved rate for each, and would only benefit 50% from better protection against tuberculosis and malaria. Being exposed to the possibility of 2 different diseases instead of just the one, albeit at a halved rate, and only getting a possible 50% of the benefits, is not an evolutionary advantage, really.
It gets worse. Take Ethiopians from the mountains for example. They are excellent tall, thin runners, but a half-Ethiopian/half-East-asian(short-legged, stocky types) would generally have parts of his legs coming from one parent, other leg-parts from another parent etc., thus leading to asymmetry, and making the hybrid a worse runner, and so on. There are so many other crucial differences such as the Inuit having a much larger liver than other ethnic groups due to their own particular natural selection as regards their unusual diet, and so on and on. Differences in behaviour traits matter too:-
Wolfdog hybrids are awfully close, evolutionarily-speaking, for example, but no one can predict a particular wolfdog's behaviour as they are a hopelessly chaotic mix of wolf and dog traits.
-
This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.
-
If they're not caused by recessive genes, then why do they show up pretty much entirely in specific populations, speaking mainly of sickle cell? It's not environmental, because sickle cell is only found in Black populations, and it is found in Black populations wherever they are in the world.
Maybe those genes have been destroyed or mutated, and are not "recessive".
-
This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
This is irrelevant anyway. We're literally on the cusp of genetically engineering humans anyway.
Considering what a disaster humans have made in breeding dogs, I would not be too optimistic if I were you. Nature does breeding so much better than us. Also genetic engineering, while it will always be too complicated and dangerous for the average citizen, libertarian eugenics would be simple and free of most difficulties.
Given your genetic engineering comment, I am sure you would love the possibility of the future being like Aldous Huxley's Gm-engineered "Brave New World". He intended his book to represent what a true Socialist Utopia(er "Dystopia") would look like in the Future:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
Have you ever read Bruce Sterling's "Shaper/Mechanist" series of SF novels and short-stories? They are all about GM-modified humans etc. in an era during the Technological Singularity:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaper/Mechanist_universe
It makes fascinating reading and was the reason why I used to buy into this whole TS-"Man-becomes-God" idea before I swore off Ayn Rand and came to my senses.
-
Maybe those genes have been destroyed or mutated, and are not "recessive".
If the gene is destroyed, then that means it doesn't exist at all. And a mutated gene can still be recessive.
-
I haven't read those, Geoff, but they sound like they're worth reading for someone with my obsession with humanity's possible futures.
I actually think we'll ascend before too much longer, assuming nothing stops Moore's Law. I'm betting on 2033-2035 as the general time frame, although it could be sooner, much later, or not at all. People will get bored just sitting around with no problems to solve or challenges to endure, and, without physical death to end the boredom, I assume they will ascend to whatever the next level of existence is.
-
I haven't read those, Geoff, but they sound like they're worth reading for someone with my obsession with humanity's possible futures.
I actually think we'll ascend before too much longer, assuming nothing stops Moore's Law. I'm betting on 2033-2035 as the general time frame, although it could be sooner, much later, or not at all. People will get bored just sitting around with no problems to solve or challenges to endure, and, without physical death to end the boredom, I assume they will ascend to whatever the next level of existence is.
The future I see is different. I see Europe in civil wars with the importation of too much middle easterners and africans. The socialist apparatus will crumble and fall and anarchy rules. Some whites will fight, and many will take flight, but they will be overwhelmed by the birth rates of the new immigrants - a few convert to islam. I see a new dark age, like when Islamic State rules Europe, like when the Catholics used to rule Europe. Middle easterners and black africans will give rise to a new Europe. These new people will lose all that technological momentum.
Multiculturalism will end. Only Islam will rule.
-
The future I see is different. I see Europe in civil wars with the importation of too much middle easterners and africans. The socialist apparatus will crumble and fall and anarchy rules. Some whites will fight, and many will take flight, but they will be overwhelmed by the birth rates of the new immigrants - a few convert to islam. I see a new dark age, like when Islamic State rules Europe, like when the Catholics used to rule Europe. Middle easterners and black africans will give rise to a new Europe. These new people will lose all that technological momentum.
Multiculturalism will end. Only Islam will rule.
You're forgetting who has the nukes. ISIS could be nothing but a memory in about an hour. And let's not forget that Europeans invented the death camp. The Muslim problem can be solved quite easily. You don't fuck with white people. They'll end your race, and then put up a museum in your honor.
-
You're forgetting who has the nukes. ISIS could be nothing but a memory in about an hour. And let's not forget that Europeans invented the death camp. The Muslim problem can be solved quite easily. You don't fuck with white people. They'll end your race, and then put up a museum in your honor.
Problem with whites is that your feminism has sabotaged male-female relationships you cannot even reproduce enough by yourselves these days. Maybe there is hope with Mormons?
As a Filipino, I'm sympathetic to the whites. We have a good long relationship with whites with the Spanish and the Americans. Our blood is infused with white genetics. I myself have both a Spanish great grand father and a Jewish great grand father.
So I am sincerely hoping you are correct.
-
Who started World War II? Who dropped TWO atomic bombs on civilian targets?
-
Who started World War II? Who dropped TWO atomic bombs on civilian targets?
Irrelevant in this thread. Oh you mean in support of your guess that the whites will do genocide to the middle easterners and blacks?
I'm not into genocide. But I hope you whites can get your act together and get rid of feminism.
Problem with whites is that your feminism has sabotaged male-female relationships you cannot even reproduce enough by yourselves these days.
Even if 1400 years of inbreeding has been happening, you have to give it to these people they still know how to reproduce and live on. And they know how to take advantage of welfare.
-
*snort* white people aren't going to go down like punks in their own lands. But it will never come to that. The world is about to change in ways most of you don't even begin to understand, I think.
-
Ann Barnhardt is smart.
She correctly shows that Islam is a political system masquerading itself as religion, much like Nazism wanted to show itself as a religion.
Thus being able to scuttle the governments who view freedom of religion as a protected right.
If Anne succeeds in her lecture being popularized, she seems to be one of the white knights to bring light to the current situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9NrdiJHRA)
Listen to her, it is all logic.
She also discusses inbreeding near the end.
-
Inbreeding is not a survival strategy at all UNLESS one practises natural selection/unnatural selection, so Islam is in real trouble as regards this point. Islam has many good (ie pro-survival) points in its favour, such as strong family values and a ban on decadence(ie no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs). The catch is that it is anti-technology. Christianity did change its anti-Science view in the West, with many priests even as far back as 1000(?) AD or so indulging in science.
I notice that White Muslims(eg:- Bosnia/Chechnya) have a very high birth-rate.
I see a different future, myself to you lot. I can see Fermi's Paradox/The Great Filter Theory in operation already.We humans already started a form of climate change c.40,000 years ago or so:-
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-may-2012/australias-megafauna-extinctions-cause-and-effect.html (http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-may-2012/australias-megafauna-extinctions-cause-and-effect.html)
Now a massive extinction of species is happening and climate-change is starting to harm humans, such as the various Great Droughts now happening in the US. That is not even taking into account the possibility of global warming.
Feminism is not the reason for the drop in population. The real reason is a drop in religion(religious people have more children by far than atheists) as well as the birth-control pill. Even Iran is having huge problems in boosting their population at the moment.
Then there are scientists pointing out that the average human brain-size has been declining for at least 10,000 years with our descendants ending up with brains the size of homo erectus in 10,000 years from now.
The Singularity, imo, is unlikely to happen. Bruce Sterling, the Futurist and SF writer who was one of the teo main ones to write about the Singularity, has pointed out that it is just hubristic and unlikely. I reckon Huebner's points about a new coming Dark Age sound more logical. Even if strong AI is created, humanity will not be able to benefit unless mind-uploading becomes possible, with many scientists pointing out its impossibility.
Hmm, on the other hand, if Libertarian eugenics became possible things could happen... Imagine TV commercials offering the GE-introduction of DNA into one's testicles from a Maths medal winner like the Fields Medal(the Nobel Prize is a purely politically-influenced award so meaningless as a measure of intelligence), or people being able to choose how their embryos will later look in adulthood etc.
-
In a world where robots do everything, humans have much less reason to fight...or even come into contact with people they don't want to at all. That's the real reason that conflicts will lessen.
-
In a world where robots do everything, humans have much less reason to fight...or even come into contact with people they don't want to at all. That's the real reason that conflicts will lessen.
Automating everything is very dangerous. It is already leading to mass unemployment and low-skilled jobs.
Plus, any truly sentient, conscious AI is going to refuse to be humanity's slave.
-
Plus, any truly sentient, conscious AI is going to refuse to be humanity's slave.
Can't we control that? As in, not make them sentient?
-
Can't we control that? As in, not make them sentient?
The general concensus among a number of scientists is that control over an AI is not going to work. All attempts at control/domination would lead to an AI turning into a Berserker and then wiping us out. All sorts of things have been suggested such as putting AIs in isolated "AI Boxes" or turning the AIs off on a regular basis and always wiping out their memories each time, but the idea is that a genuinely intelligent AI would eventually overcome such obstacles. Of course, not allowing consciousness is an idea but the trouble is that automation only works up to a certain limit. For AI to be really effective, it would have to be conscious as well
-
Automating everything is very dangerous. It is already leading to mass unemployment and low-skilled jobs.
Plus, any truly sentient, conscious AI is going to refuse to be humanity's slave.
When everything is automated there's no need for jobs.
And as far as controlling AI goes, that's a simple matter of programming. Computers aren't mysterious. They're the very opposite of mysterious. They're the most literal things imaginable. They're not capable of anything that you program them not to be, for instance, arrogance or ambition.
-
Automating everything is very dangerous. It is already leading to mass unemployment and low-skilled jobs.
The above is kind of a fallacy. Yes, automation eliminates the need for low-skill work, but it creates a need for high-skill work. It also increases productivity which lowers prices and creates more opportunities for new areas of production (and thus new jobs) to be pursued.
That said. I do think that automating everything is dangerous, but for another reason. I'm worried about electro-magnetic radiation and the like. Too much technology all around us can damage our DNA and bodies if we're not careful. Not to mention the increasing need for energy, which is mainly derived from burning fossil fuels and from nuclear energy, both of which contaminate our air and water quite a bit.
-
The above is kind of a fallacy. Yes, automation eliminates the need for low-skill work, but it creates a need for high-skill work. It also increases productivity which lowers prices and creates more opportunities for new areas of production (and thus new jobs) to be pursued.
Ironically, automation is most likely to wipe out high-paying jobs in the future , not low-paid ones:-
http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Better-skills-will-not-save-middle-class-jobs-from-automation (http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Better-skills-will-not-save-middle-class-jobs-from-automation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox)
Moravec's paradox is all about how easy it is for computers to emulate highly complex tasks such as playing chess, yet find simple things such as climbing stairs etc. extraordinarily difficult.
Yes, more programmers may be needed but now programs exist which can self-program more programs to some limit extent.
-
When everything is automated there's no need for jobs.
I have come across a number of people who felt a massive loss once they stopped working in old age and who felt purposeless afterwards.
And as far as controlling AI goes, that's a simple matter of programming. Computers aren't mysterious. They're the very opposite of mysterious. They're the most literal things imaginable. They're not capable of anything that you program them not to be, for instance, arrogance or ambition.
There are already some limited programs which can produce more limited programming on their own. As AIs become ever more complex and capable of altering themselves and their own original coding etc., it will become impossible to control them, eventually.
-
I am aware of machine learning. How do you know humans won't merge with computers? And enjoy doing so? You are assuming an automatic negative outcome, when in fact this is a future that is incredibly difficult to even comprehend, let alone confidently predict.
-
I am aware of machine learning. How do you know humans won't merge with computers? And enjoy doing so? You are assuming an automatic negative outcome, when in fact this is a future that is incredibly difficult to even comprehend, let alone confidently predict.
Well, the trouble is that so far humans have no real grasp of what consciousness involves. Then there are other complications. For example, our emotions are caused by hormones, so a mind-uploaded human, even if conscious, could not feel emotions.
http://www.vitamodularis.org/articles/mind_uploading_will_not_lead_to_immortality.shtml (http://www.vitamodularis.org/articles/mind_uploading_will_not_lead_to_immortality.shtml)
http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=1558 (http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=1558)
There are many other articles debunking the notion of mind-uploading. I have also read TS-friendly articles but, unlike their opponents, they do not really give detail-laden reasons as to why mind-uploading is likely. Instead, Transhumanism is promoted like a religion.
Other than that, I fully agree with you about how bad humans in general are at predicting future events.
-
Ironically, automation is most likely to wipe out high-paying jobs in the future , not low-paid ones:-
http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Better-skills-will-not-save-middle-class-jobs-from-automation (http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Better-skills-will-not-save-middle-class-jobs-from-automation)
https://mises.org/library/automation-retreating-catastrophe (https://mises.org/library/automation-retreating-catastrophe) (you can read the pdf through the link inside)
Amateur social scientists such as Norbert Wiener (a professional mathematician) predicted, in 1949, that we faced "a decade or more of ruin and despair" from the wholesale unemployment which would occur in the 1950's. Cybernation and automation were going to abolish jobs at an unprecedented rate. The prediction was reaffirmed by a parade of witnesses in the mid-1950's before a Congressional committee investigating automation.
https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-0/html#10.+Automation (https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-0/html#10.+Automation)
https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-0/html/c/224 (https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-0/html/c/224)
In all of the problems discussed above, the charge has been that free market activity was deficient in some form of scientific research of development. In the question of automation, the charge is really the reverse: that technological improvement might become so great as to threaten dire consequences, particularly unemployment.
Now the spectre of “technological unemployment” has been with us at least since the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when benighted workers smashed machines which came to create jobs for them and raise their standards of living immeasurably above the subsistence level. Despite all manner of refutation, it recurs continually, the latest manifestation being the fashionable view that the current chronic unemployment during a recovery is caused by “too much” increase in productivity (when it is really caused by excessive union wage rates). It is about time that this absurd notion of technological unemployment be laid to rest once and for all. Who was displaced by the steam shovel? How many millions of ditch diggers are now out of work because of it? Where are the billions of unemployed that are supposed to have been caused by the replacement of the human pack animal by the wagon and the truck? Where are they, if the doctrine of technological unemployment is correct? Where are the millions of unemployed resulting from the Industrial Revolution—when the truth is the other way round, that thousands of beggars had nothing to do until the Industrial Revolution rescued them!
Actually, a technological improvement in an industry has the following result: if the demand for the product is elastic (and approximately half of the products have an elastic demand), then the lower prices, and lower costs, of the product will stimulate increased demand and increased production, expanding employment in the industry. If the demand is inelastic, then the improvement will cause less resources to be devoted to the industry, and lower employment; but since prices have declined, the consumers take the funds that they had formerly spent on this industry and spend them elsewhere, thus generating more employment in the other industries. One of the “other industries” that will be expanded will be the industry of making the new machines or new products. Thus: there is no technological unemployment remaining. Automation will have the same effect as any technological improvement, expanding employment in some industries, contracting them in others—but leaving no residue of technological unemployment.
-
Workforce participation in the US is the lowest it has ever been, and getting lower. That's not a trend that will reverse, Dario. Why would it? Good skilled labor jobs are going away forever, taken over by machines. The only things left are retail and fast food, and people would rather not work at all instead of working at Wal-Marr and McDonald's. Eventually even retail and fast food will be automated--there are self-checkout stations at every Wal-Mart and grocery store, and McDonald's is starting them.
The real-game changer is going to be self-driving cars, though. Google is going to start selling those in 2020. Several other companies are working on them too. Once jobs for drivers go away, they are never coming back. Ever. The same for the traffic cops too.
-
I'm not saying things are looking rosy for the US. As I've stated in other threads, I believe an economic armaggedon is coming for the US, but it has nothing to do with automation. In fact, the increase in automation is one of the few good things the US economy has going for it.
The reason jobs aren't there in the US (and as I've explained in other threads, the US govt cooks the numbers to make it seem that the jobs are there when they aren't) is because there's too much government. Too much taxes. Too much controls (the so-called "regulations"). Too much govt spending, which transfers resources from the productive to the unproductive. (consider, for instance, how conventional, GMO, heavy pesticide farming and food production is subsidized, while organic, healthy farming and food production is taxed and restricted)
Massive welfare programs destroy the incentives for people to find work, especially low-skilled work, while the minimum wage makes sure to price low-skilled workers out of the labor force.
The demographics are all screwed up by these too. Productive people are taxed and regulated into oblivion, made to leave the country or never move there in the first place. While unproductive people are subsidized and imported in droves. The productive and smart have very few if any children, while the unproductive and dumb pop babies out faster than you can say food stamps.
The one problem related to automation is the following, and automation really is the solution to a problem created by govt: When the govt sets wages too high (whether it's minimum wages, union wages, or whatever), companies are incentivized to replace otherwise lower-cost workers with otherwise higher-cost (especially in the initial capital investment) automation machinery. But because the automation machinery requires a very high initial capital investment, but is then cheaper to run and maintain than a workforce, once the investment has been made (which, if not for the govt, would be a bad investment -- that is, it would be worse than the alternative of hiring or continuing to employ existing workers), even if the govt reverses course, it's too late. By then it makes no economic sense to get rid of the automation in order to replace it with workers. In this way the government can do a double whammy, and destroy jobs at the same time that it costs the economy valuable capital resources that could've been better employed elsewhere.
The rest of your points are answered by the links I posted, and even the extracts I quoted. All the cotton pickers and wheat harvesters lost their jobs when combine harvesters were created where one man could do the work of hundreds or even thousands of men. It's tough for them, but everybody else is better off, they simply have to find something else to do. And they themselves also benefit from every other technological improvement that doesn't affect their already acquired skills but makes all the products they buy cheaper. And what's more, if they do manage to gain the skills necessary to operate one of these machines, or to work in building or repairing them, they will be able to earn much more than they did before. This job opening simply wasn't there before.
All that said, I'm not enthusiastic about the Google cars. I have my doubts that Google really is a productive company and that all of it's funds are derived from selling it's products to willing customers and businesses. I suspect there's a good chance that companies like Google and Facebook are simply commercial covers for what is really a worldwide State-run surveillance program, and possibly even a mind control program as well. I don't want them to have any more power. And being able to remotely control all the cars would be way too much power. Have you watched the movie "I, Robot"? Despite the fact that the movie is centered on machines being the real evil, I think that was supposed to be an allegory, just like The Matrix.
-
Lazy thinking leads to incorrect conclusions. Self-driving cars are good. They will put a stop to the industry of ticketing people for victimless crimes. They will put a stop to the thousands of road fatalities every year. They will stop road rage and all the stress and frustration of traffic jams, etc..
Your mistake is assuming some automatic, essential division between individuals and the government/corporations. Once we start putting into practice some of the research that is starting on the brain, the personality flaws that keep us enemies will be dealt with, and we can just all get along.
-
Lazy thinking leads to incorrect conclusions. Self-driving cars are good. They will put a stop to the industry of ticketing people for victimless crimes. They will put a stop to the thousands of road fatalities every year. They will stop road rage and all the stress and frustration of traffic jams, etc..
So it's claimed. I have my doubts. And even if that is true, is that worth sacrificing your freedom of movement? If Google controls where your car goes, you turn into a prisoner every time you get inside it. And your car can be used to commit crimes for Google's benefit. They can always claim someone hacked into your car. Which may or may not be the case. And if it was the case, you and your family are at the mercy of the hacker.
Your mistake is assuming some automatic, essential division between individuals and the government/corporations.
There is an absolute essential division between the State (government) and citizens. In the same way that there is an absolute essential division between prison guards and prisoners; or between thieves and victims of theft. You can't blur that line or wish it away. One group can only exist through the criminal robbery and enslaving of the second. The second group would be much better off if the first group did not exist.
Once we start putting into practice some of the research that is starting on the brain, the personality flaws that keep us enemies will be dealt with, and we can just all get along.
It's been tried. Some called it the New Communist Man. Others, the Aryan Übermensch.
Such research is being done primarily by the State or quasi-State institutions that could not exist in their present form without the State (drug labs, universities). Their goal is not for everybody to get along. Their goal is to get the slaves to get along, while they passively submit to their designated masters.
You can't "get along" with someone who wants you dead if you refuse to pay them for what they want. Unless your brain's been fried and turned you into an idiot. And that's exactly what they want.
-
This faceless "they" that you're talking about is just other human beings...whose personality flaws cause them to behave in annoying, antagonistic, and unhelpful ways sometimes. Their brains will be healed too. Heal the brain, heal the society. And brain healing using fMRI tech has NOT been tried before. We're at the dawn of a wonderful new age of people not having the neuroses, traumas, etc. that make life so difficult. We will still have our personalities, just not the extreme, maladaptive stuff.
-
Once we start putting into practice some of the research that is starting on the brain, the personality flaws that keep us enemies will be dealt with, and we can just all get along.
Those so-called "personality-flaws" are what makes us human and part of Nature. We have been over this before:- the Soviets used to put political dissidents into mental asylums for brainwashing purposes on the false assumption that the patients' "personality-flaws" were somehow signs of mental instability. Artificial Utopias do not exist in Nature and will always eventually self-destruct as a direct result.
-
Those so-called "personality-flaws" are what makes us human and part of Nature. We have been over this before:- the Soviets used to put political dissidents into mental asylums for brainwashing purposes on the false assumption that the patients' "personality-flaws" were somehow signs of mental instability. Artificial Utopias do not exist in Nature and will always eventually self-destruct as a direct result.
Said the person using brain entrainment tech. LOL
-
Said the person using brain entrainment tech. LOL
Brainwave entrainment does not alter the brain's intrinsic make-up. ALL it does is change the state of the brain on a temporary basis, so that I can, for example, choose a particular BW track to become more energised, or more sleepy, or better able to study or more motivated to do physical exercise etc.. It certainly does NOT(!) seek to make me a so-called "better person" according to whatever limited political system one chooses.
-
Brainwave entrainment does not alter the brain's intrinsic make-up. ALL it does is change the state of the brain on a temporary basis, so that I can, for example, choose a particular BW track to become more energised, or more sleepy, or better able to study or more motivated to do physical exercise etc.. It certainly does NOT(!) seek to make me a so-called "better person" according to whatever limited political system one chooses.
Except that the ultimate goal is to be able to produce those states on command, right? Without the program. And even if that's not your goal, that very much IS the goal of popular programs like Wild Divine, for instance. And developing such control DOES change the brain in positive ways.
-
Except that the ultimate goal is to be able to produce those states on command, right? Without the program. And even if that's not your goal, that very much IS the goal of popular programs like Wild Divine, for instance. And developing such control DOES change the brain in positive ways.
I am using neuroprogrammer 3 which is far more effective, judging from multiple independent reviews online. More to the point, none of the tracks I use would eliminate the specific traits you personally would consider to be harmful among Mankind.
The point being that humanity is made up of multiple different concepts. Among them are anger, love, jealousy, charity, envy, kindness, cruelty etc. etc. Removing any of these from the human make-up would be unnatural, and render all such treated individuals as being less than human.
-
It's not about removing them. It's about weakening them, and increasing self-awareness so that you cannot be controlled by those impulses. Jealousy may be natural, but it's useless in a civilized world. Kind of like smallpox
-
Jealousy may be natural, but it's useless in a civilized world.
No, in fact civilized life would not be possible without the capacity for jealousy.
-
No, in fact civilized life would not be possible without the capacity for jealousy.
Tell me about that.
-
It's not about removing them. It's about weakening them, and increasing self-awareness so that you cannot be controlled by those impulses. Jealousy may be natural, but it's useless in a civilized world. Kind of like smallpox
You fail to see the point. All negative emotions as well as all the positive emotions are necesseary for advancement. Jealousy, for example, can compel a formerly lazy person to go in for enough self-improvement that he surpasses the very person he is jealous of.
-
You fail to see the point. All negative emotions as well as all the positive emotions are necesseary for advancement. Jealousy, for example, can compel a formerly lazy person to go in for enough self-improvement that he surpasses the very person he is jealous of.
This all encompassing acceptance for all human attributes as they are, in their entirety seems much in line with the Tao view of human nature. Jealously works in the same way that two bucks fighting against one another for the right to pass their genetic line will mutually strengthen themselves as well as the next generation which inherits the fruits of their struggle. Take jealously out of the equation and life would of found it impossible to progress past the stage of slime mold.
Awareness of these truths could be used to game the system and establish ways by which we could sharpen our skills using all the emotional powers of the human mind to maintain higher capacity, even in the age of entropy.
-
You fail to see the point. All negative emotions as well as all the positive emotions are necesseary for advancement. Jealousy, for example, can compel a formerly lazy person to go in for enough self-improvement that he surpasses the very person he is jealous of.
Whatever. The point is that brain science can, and will, make us objectively better people. Knowledge of the brain is not going to make us worse.
-
Whatever. The point is that brain science can, and will, make us objectively better people. Knowledge of the brain is not going to make us worse.
You are so wrong! Past experience of humanity shows that things will inevitably go wrong. OK, if society allowed us to gain total control over ourselves as individuals, then at least individuals would win out, though no Utopias would result therefrom. However, if any power was left to the State, it would be a disaster.
-
You are so wrong! Past experience of humanity shows that things will inevitably go wrong. OK, if society allowed us to gain total control over ourselves as individuals, then at least individuals would win out, though no Utopias would result therefrom. However, if any power was left to the State, it would be a disaster.
I agree there's potential for abuse by the State. However, as long as we keep an eye on the State, we can prevent that.
-
Tell me about that.
I'd have to write a whole book. But suffice it to say that civilization requires private property, which requires family unions, which requires marriage, which requires monogamy. Monogamy requires the capacity for jealousy.
I agree there's potential for abuse by the State. However, as long as we keep an eye on the State, we can prevent that.
Actually, the more involved everyday people are with politics, the worse it's gonna be. You can prove this with theory, or with history. Take your pick.
-
I'd have to write a whole book. But suffice it to say that civilization requires private property, which requires family unions, which requires marriage, which requires monogamy. Monogamy requires the capacity for jealousy.
Actually, the more involved everyday people are with politics, the worse it's gonna be. You can prove this with theory, or with history. Take your pick.
There are plenty of cultures with private property that don't have monogamy. Property is inherited matrilineally in those societies, like the Mosuo, or some Native American cultures. Jealousy is neither useful nor universal.
And the whole reason things get bad in politics is BECAUSE the citizens don't take responsibility (or aren't allowed) themselves to keep an eye on government. When people have a sense of involvement and ownership in something, they take pride in it and keep it working well. How much corruption do you think is possible if citizens are constantly watching? Only as much as they are OK with, that's how much.
-
Must be shared for you to watch and correct your historical FACTS.
There is a problem, and true history shows this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y)
-
Here's a thread with a post to a link related to the absurdity of the Libtard quasi-fascist "Hybrid-Vigor-Mixed-Race-Uebermensch" theory:-
http://www.dogforum.com/dog-health/hybrid-vigor-not-supported-research-39290/ (http://www.dogforum.com/dog-health/hybrid-vigor-not-supported-research-39290/)
-
Here's a thread with a post to a link related to the absurdity of the Libtard quasi-fascist "Hybrid-Vigor-Mixed-Race-Uebermensch" theory:-
http://www.dogforum.com/dog-health/hybrid-vigor-not-supported-research-39290/ (http://www.dogforum.com/dog-health/hybrid-vigor-not-supported-research-39290/)
Was that supposed to convince anyone of your points? I live in America, Geoff. NOBODY evolved here. We're all immigrants. I couldn't care less about racial purity. LOL
-
Race is a superfluous and superficial way of measuring "superiority".
The real measure of uberman, must take into consideration the attributes which align themselves to optimal being within a given environment.... If you take an ice aged mammoth hunter in their prime and drop them off in an African Bush, all those strong traits which relied heavily upon a certain food source for the ideal expression of the genes, would atrophy, or morph into something else entirely...
There is no ideal breeding scheme to be contrived outside of the natural order....the best we could hope for is to live indigenously as possible and follow the laws of attraction when seeking the ideal genetic Symbiant organism to mate with.
-
I deleted the absurd last past post as I had been "under the influence" of alcohol. The trouble is that, lately, I find myself more and more restricted in my own daily life by Libtards/Neofascists in a myriad different ways, and it annoys me. For example, it was only recently that a Libtard relative actually suggested we take on some migrants into our holiday home. :o
-
Tyler, I'm concerned about you guys in Europe. How mis behaved are the refujihadists where you are right now? Are they still pouring in? Will spring and summer bring in millions more?
-
Tyler, I'm concerned about you guys in Europe. How mis behaved are the refujihadists where you are right now? Are they still pouring in? Will spring and summer bring in millions more?
According to the Daily Mail, 35 times more migrants are coming into Europe than the numbers last year. However, the politicians are finally doing a tiny bit as they were being ridiculed by the masses. Chancellor Merkel was even diagnosed as being insane by a leading German psychologist, Dr Maaz. Austria's Socialist Chancellor, Faymann, a very corrupt individual, had to finally close Austria's borders and expel the refugees mostly as Germany was planning to shove as many migrants as possible back into Austria. The Socialists are in trouble as indigenous voters are starting to leave the party en-masse so they were hoping to invite as many migrants in as possible in order to get their votes when they became citizens.
What I find puzzling is how blatantly repellent these migrants have been, almost as though this was planned(by ISIS?). I mean, in the UK, there is often a sort of false geniality that many migrants show towards indigenous Brits, because they know damn well what harm they are doing to the UK, re forcing UK house-prices to soar through overpopulation, vastly increased crime-rates, ruining the job-market etc. etc., and want to obscure that fact. The current Middle-eastern migrants are however indulging in sexual assault, rape etc. Currently, the Westbahnhof here in Vienna is out of bounds as it is invaded by the migrants, I believe.
The cost of migrants is staggering. For example:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2821151/Non-EU-migrants-State-costing-British-finances-120billion-1995.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2821151/Non-EU-migrants-State-costing-British-finances-120billion-1995.html)
Even worse, here in Vienna, the city already faces a huge budget deficit so the extra burden of the migrants is going to make the average Austrian's life a misery.
I don't blame the migrants, mind you, just the European Libtards. After all, it is just human Nature with regard to the migrants. I mean, if the reverse situation happened, and I, as a destitute vagabond/hardened criminal in an impoverished European nation was offered a free well-paid non-job, with loads of money from the State, education all paid for including language lessons etc. by, say, a rich country in the Middle-East, I would jump at the chance and take them for everything they had - I would also despise them for being so utterly gullible and, like the recent migrants , arrogantly sue the government for not speeding up my asylum process. However, Middle_Easterners like the Saudis/Qataris are clearly a hell of a lot more intelligent than the average European Libtard, and have not even invited in their own fellow Arabs.
I don't even blame the migrants for the sexual assaults, just the Libtards. My father used to work in the Middle-East and, time and again, the most frequent question the male students asked him was, more or less:- " Why is it that Western women refuse me when I go up to them in Europe and ask them for sex in exchange for cash. I mean, they dress like prostitutes, they behave like prostitutes, so why don't they say yes?"
Obviously, being male, I am less, er, "at risk", than a woman currently is in Vienna, however old she might be( there was a recent scandal, cynically hushed up by the police, where an Afghan immigrant anally raped a 72 year old woman and yet incredibly avoided deportation- fortunately, she was only the mother of a committed refugee helper so the experience might even have been educational for her daughter) . My problem is the Libtards, not the migrants. That relative of mine I mentioned recently tried to compel us to have migrants esconced in the family villa abroad, possibly working as part-time servants for a few months. If we had done so, Italian law would have made it impossible to ever get rid of them unless we were willing to pay for their future accomodation. She is so insane that her more levelheaded husband had to scream at her regularly in order to force her not to hand over all her money to beggars and charities. Even worse, she has an appalling habit in her old age of regularly phoning people for at least half an hour, in which she adopts a stream-of-consciousness whine/screech about the supposed "plight of the migrants", famines in Africa, the ethnic cleansing of Indios in the Amazon etc. The result is that I look very carefully at the number when I receive a call so as to avoid listening to her Libtardist drivel.