GENIUS FORUMS

snow bunny wrote:I'm curious what country you live in that doesn't have a welfare system. I would have thought most civilized nations do. Also interesting that welfare would decrease crime, never though of it that way.

[quote="Welfare's winning "The Surge", at least temporarily"]Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.

It's a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it's creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims.

"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."[/quote]

Wow, great. Nice to know that our country is providing a guaranteed minimum income for Iraqi insurgents, but not for American citizens.

That's just.... rrrrrrrrr. <grinds teeth>

Then again, I guess it does show quite dramatically that welfare reduces violence.

Unidian,

Absolutely. Instead of having true self-determination and having the freedom to become a thinker, I could have spent the past 8 years working at McDonalds. What a waste. It's just a shame. Nobody should be allowed to throw their life away like that. Who knows how many potential hamburger flippers have been lost to society that way?

You can still be an intellectual, and be a part-time contributor to society. Actually, under the right circumstances I could probably become a university professor, or scientific researcher if I was surrounded by fellow thinkers that exhibited a bit of sanity, and vision for the future of humanity as a superman.

However, I agree that it is difficult to work full-time and stay sane as an intellectual, but one can easily work a part-time job and still have time for contemplation, and inner-exploration. Kevin worked a bit to make money I believe.

Unidian,

Most likely quite a few, and you guys should definitely crack down on that. People need to understand that work is MANDATORY. He who will not work, neither shall he eat.

my point is that if taxes get too high to pay for all these services, then a recession is caused by too many people on the dole, and too many hands in the pot. Excessive spending is not a good idea if you want economic stability, its not rocket science, and its definitely not progressive to believe in blind liberal political philosophy. Being a fiscal conservative is actually necessary to keep your welfare check coming in you know, you gotta balance the budget or the entire system goes into a downturn spiral…like we are seeing now in the US. And guess what? Then everybody suffers…

Dan,

Kucinich dropped out? Damn, there goes my interest in the election.

You know Kucinich and Ron Paul actually see things very similar. There were quite a few bills in the house where the two of them were the only ones to vote against. Kucinich has been quoted in saying that he’d prefer Ron Paul as his running mate, and vice versa for Ron Paul.

Here are some interesting You Tube Videos which highlight that -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPuGKNr ... re=related

Snow Bunny,

That seems very high to me. I live in New Brunswick, and I have a hard time believing that 10% of my countrymen are on welfare (or were in '95). I'm not saying that it definitely isn't true, but I'm not going to simply take your word for it. If you have that info, then please be more specific about where you have learned it from. Do you have a link or something where I could read about it for myself? I don't mean to be overly skeptical, but that does seem very high.

Here is the link:
http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_welno.htm

the national total is the last figure, after the provincial totals.

You can still be an intellectual, and be a part-time contributor to society.

Why do that when I can be a full-time contributor to society?

Your statement presumes that only economic contributions matter. I don't share that view.

Actually, under the right circumstances I could probably become a university professor, or scientific researcher if I was surrounded by fellow thinkers that exhibited a bit of sanity, and vision for the future of humanity as a superman.

Same here, except for the "superman" part. A saner society would aggressively cultivate its intellectual resources. This society, on the other hand, doesn't mind at all if those resources are wasted at Burger King.

However, I agree that it is difficult to work full-time and stay sane as an intellectual, but one can easily work a part-time job and still have time for contemplation, and inner-exploration.

Perhaps, but why do so? It might also be possible to think substantively while sitting on top of a telephone pole. I'm not interested in finding out, though.

my point is that if taxes get too high to pay for all these services, then a recession is caused by too many people on the dole, and too many hands in the pot.

Studies exist which show this simply doesn't happen. Most people have no interest in settling for "the minimum," even if it's free. Human nature prevents it.

Being a fiscal conservative is actually necessary to keep your welfare check coming in you know, you gotta balance the budget or the entire system goes into a downturn spiral…like we are seeing now in the US.

To some extent, that's true. Naturally, I do support whatever level of "fiscal responsibility" is necessary to ensure that an unemployed class can exist.

Heck, I even recognize a certain worth in Republicans and other right-wingers, because nobody works harder to put shoes on my feet than they do. :p

Unidian,

Your statement presumes that only economic contributions matter. I don't share that view.

Sure, being an intellectual matters, but in raw economic terms, being able to think critically doesn’t help you very much in the whole survival game, unless you justify that being an intellectual qualifies you for welfare. Myself, I’d rather try to adapt somehow, and earn my own way because the economy will be stronger in the long run, especially as the number of intellectuals continues to drastically increase. The more intelligent the society becomes, the higher the risk of a total collapse if we all think like you.

A saner society would aggressively cultivate its intellectual resources. This society, on the other hand, doesn't mind at all if those resources are wasted at Burger King.

You are free to do other things besides Burger King, which are more satisfying. For instance: I find science and technology interesting, so I could probably tolerate selling computer hardware at a retail store such as Best Buy part-time, and still support myself economically, which is good for the economy. Plus I would be keeping on top of my technical knowledge.

Perhaps, but why do so? It might also be possible to think substantively while sitting on top of a telephone pole. I'm not interested in finding out, though.

Because if everyone behaved and thought as you do then we would all starve to death. The fact of the matter is that for the economy to function at its peak capacity, the fewer dependents the better.

As an contemplating economist, It seems to me that out of control parasitic relationships drain the economic system, and there is threat to the economy that as the percentage of intellectuals and other dependents increase, it could impose too much of a burden on the working middle-class.

Because if everyone behaved and thought as you do then we would all starve to death.

True, although this is mitigated by the fact that there is virtually no chance everyone will ever behave and think like I do. Everything we know about human psychology argues against it. Basic statistics argue against it as well. Few people have the brains, frankly.

Unless you're suggesting that you consider Kant's categorical imperative the overriding moral concern regarding this question, then I don't think it matters that everyone would starve if they all thought like me. That will simply never happen.

As an contemplating economist, It seems to me that out of control parasitic relationships drain the economic system, and there is threat to the economy that as the percentage of intellectuals and other dependents increase, it could impose too much of a burden on the working middle-class.

This is apparently predicated on the existence of your eugenics program, which you believe would rapidly swell the ranks of intellectuals. I do not support such a program, and I would expect the number of intellectuals to remain relatively small indefinitely.

"Other dependents" are another matter - but if they aren't intellectuals, then chances are good that they buy into the usual cultural indoctrination and so forth. This will keep most of them working, because such people will always value ambition, status, worldly achievement, etc. People don't suddenly become Spartan ascetics just because welfare becomes available.

BTW, if you hate Reagan (and I know you do), it would be best not to use the term "Democrat" where "Democratic" should be used.

I always use the word Democrat because I think if I say Democratic, people will think I'm talking about democracy, and not the political party and its members. But maybe I was wrong all along. I'll start saying democratic and see what happens.

Very Democratic of you, Sher. :)

Unidian,

This is apparently predicated on the existence of your eugenics program, which you believe would rapidly swell the ranks of intellectuals. I do not support such a program, and I would expect the number of intellectuals to remain relatively small indefinitely.

That is rather selfish isn’t it? You prefer the majority of humanity to stay unconscious and ignorant so that you can continue living off the dole? Personally, I would rather see increasing numbers of individuals become wise, and if I was forced to work part-time to keep the economy running, than I would be willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of a wiser collective.

Moreover, even since the introduction of the internet, the general intelligence of the developed world has increased quite a bit, technology acts as a waking up agent, so your unconditional dole theory for the minority of Unidians of the world doesn’t hold up.

Even fifty years ago, being a secularist wasn’t as popular as it is now, as larger numbers of university students are able to easily negate the absurdity of organized religions. How long do you think it will take before the common man catches up to you?

snow bunny,

I'm curious what country you live in that doesn't have a welfare system. I would have thought most civilized nations do.

Most civilized and rich nations might have it, but mine is a poor nation. 39% of the population lives in poverty, so it may not be mathematically possible to have them all on welfare.

Oh, and the name is Panama.

Also interesting that welfare would decrease crime, never though of it that way.

I didn't use to think of it that way, but in 2007 I was a victim of two crimes in less than two weeks, and I started feeling scared. Then I started devoting more time to thinking about crime in Panama: who does it, what leads them to it, how it can be reduced, and so on. In a competitive system, I don't believe all people are fit for employment, and I believe those that are not need to be carried. Otherwise, they're going to take what they need illegally.

Another possible solution I came up with was walled cities, but that would just not fly.

-

That is rather selfish isn’t it? You prefer the majority of humanity to stay unconscious and ignorant so that you can continue living off the dole?

No, not at all. That wasn't my point. I oppose eugenics for other reasons. I wouldn't support eugenics under any conditions, at any time. I'd prefer the majority of humanity to remain "unconscious and ignorant" rather than for any portion of humanity to suffer the horrors that inevitably follow from ideas about "supermen."

RR: Thank you for the link. I am surprised that you were indeed correct. I am overly skeptical sometimes. Ryan Rudolph is male, right?

Shahrazad wrote:snow bunny,

I'm curious what country you live in that doesn't have a welfare system. I would have thought most civilized nations do.

Most civilized and rich nations might have it, but mine is a poor nation. 39% of the population lives in poverty, so it may not be mathematically possible to have them all on welfare.

Oh, and the name is Panama.

Also interesting that welfare would decrease crime, never though of it that way.

I didn't use to think of it that way, but in 2007 I was a victim of two crimes in less than two weeks, and I started feeling scared. Then I started devoting more time to thinking about crime in Panama: who does it, what leads them to it, how it can be reduced, and so on. In a competitive system, I don't believe all people are fit for employment, and I believe those that are not need to be carried. Otherwise, they're going to take what they need illegally.

Another possible solution I came up with was walled cities, but that would just not fly.

-

Oh, well that explains it. When you aren't from North America or Australia, then I think Europe, so now I see that where you were going makes a lot more sense. Sounds like a good place to be. I've never been south of Mexico, but I think I might be taking some time to go hiking in South America, Chile perhaps, but that's probably 1000's of miles from there, but still South/Central America.

Unidian,

I wouldn't support eugenics under any conditions, at any time. I'd prefer the majority of humanity to remain "unconscious and ignorant" rather than for any portion of humanity to suffer the horrors that inevitably follow from ideas about "supermen."

You lack imagination. A Eugenics movement doesn’t have to be a nazi movement, you associate it with control by an ignorant group. You forget that law and regulation is now backed up by hard science, so once genetic engineering solves the problems of genetically inherited disease and illness, where do you think the scientists will move onto? I can envision them eliminating mental illness and psychological imperfections as well, and drastically increasing the intelligence of the species by increasing the size of cortex, which will increase the number of neurons available to the thinker.

Have you ever seen pictures of aliens with enlarged brains? well, I don't think its too far off. Moreover, The popular picture of an alien is probably our future selves, which is merely an image floating around in the collective unconscious.

Essentially, An alien species is probably possible that is far superior to you or I as far as neural capacity is concerned. Basically, Genetic Engineering has the possibility to create an entire new species, and people would be so acutely aware of their own mental inferiority in comparison to such a creation of science that they would quickly change their tune regarding tweaking the genome to produce a superman.

A Superman maybe humanities only hope because most people don't seem all that receptive to wisdom of the infinite or Poison for the heart, or any other profound body of philosophy for that matter. If you cannot create a superman with external influence, you need to dive into the internal workings of the organism as a scientist.

And once the "superman" exists, what is to be done with the remaining "inferiors" and "defectives?"

Unidian,

And once the "superman" exists, what is to be done with the remaining "inferiors" and "defectives?"

There probably would be segregated societies with the genetically superior humans living together, and the mediocre humans living together. However, I would imagine that the ratio between superiors and inferiors should move in the direction of more and more superiors because the ones with intellectual handicaps would become more and more aware of the greatness of the new species, and so they would either stop reproducing, or have their own offspring modified to live with the superiors.

Actually, we have that same mentality now to some degree, we want our children to be the very best they can be, and so we encourage intellectual pursuits such as college and university, as parents want their children to excel, and I don’t believe that sentiment will ever change.

For instance: Just today, I was fixing a computer for a older man in the local community, and he was amazed with the youth’s knowledge with technical things, and he knew that this was the future for young people, even though he was quite ignorant of computers and science. He could sense that he lacked something, and I believe that if super humans are genetically created, that sentiment by inferiors will be only be intensified, but their discontent will be for the good of the future species.

You see, many ignorant people still have a god impulse, meaning they prefer to see the youth overcome some of the limitations they had to live with their entire lives. And so this admirable impulse, this humble impulse gives me a bit of hope for the future of humanity.

There probably would be segregated societies with the genetically superior humans living together, and the mediocre humans living together.

Ah. And if this happens in your lifetime, may I presume you're ready to take your bunk in the latter camp?

However, I would imagine that the ratio between superiors and inferiors should move in the direction of more and more superiors because the ones with intellectual handicaps would become more and more aware of the greatness of the new species, and so they would either stop reproducing, or have their own offspring modified to live with the superiors.

Perhaps, assuming they survive the first (and all subsequent) attempts at a Final Solution to The Mediocrity Problem. Doesn't history strongly suggest that is precisely what will occur?

Actually, we have that same mentality now to some degree, we want our children to be the very best they can be, and so we encourage intellectual pursuits such as college and university, as parents want their children to excel, and I don’t believe that sentiment will ever change.

I don't, (or wouldn't, presuming I had a child). None of that culturally-conditioned "excellence" pap matters to me. My children would be encouraged to pursue whatever direction in life they felt called to in a fulfilling way. If that turned out to be a contemplative life, fine. If it turned out to be working as trash collector, fine. If it involved college, fine. If it didn't, fine. As long as they were doing what was meaningful to them rather than what they were expected or coerced to do by the culture, I'd be thrilled. That, to me, is "excellence."

For instance: Just today, I was fixing a computer for a older man in the local community, and he was amazed with the youth’s knowledge with technical things, and he knew that this was the future for young people, even though he was quite ignorant of computers and science. He could sense that he lacked something, and I believe that if super humans are genetically created, that sentiment by inferiors will be only be intensified, but their discontent will be for the good of the future species.

Ugh...

You see, many ignorant people still have a god impulse, meaning they prefer to see the youth overcome some of the limitations they had to live with their entire lives. And so this admirable impulse, this humble impulse gives me a bit of hope for the future of humanity.

We don't need the demonstrably-dangerous route of eugenics to have hope in human progress. Progress has been occurring naturally for thousands of years. When we try to artificially rush Nature along, disaster is the result. Patience, grasshopper.

Unidian,

Ah. And if this happens in your lifetime, may I presume you're ready to take your bunk in the latter camp?

I'll probably end up in the mediocre camp with you, who knows.

Perhaps, assuming they survive the first (and all subsequent) attempts at a Final Solution to The Mediocrity Problem. Doesn't history strongly suggest that is precisely what will occur?

Nah, an advanced species would not be violent towards inferiors, but they would prefer those resources to be given to species with more potential. You can respect the existence of a being, but still have a goal for the limitation of that being to be replaced with something greater.

I don't, (or wouldn't, presuming I had a child). None of that culturally-conditioned "excellence" pap matters to me. My children would be encouraged to pursue whatever direction in life they felt called to in a fulfilling way. If that turned out to be a contemplative life, fine. If it turned out to be working as trash collector, fine. If it involved college, fine. If it didn't, fine. As long as they were doing what was meaningful to them rather than what they were expected or coerced to do by the culture, I'd be thrilled. That, to me, is "excellence."

Personally, I’d prefer my offspring to be advanced intellectually, and if he wasn't, then it would be a disappointment because all energy put into him would have been in vain.

We don't need the demonstrably-dangerous route of eugenics to have hope in human progress. Progress has been occurring naturally for thousands of years. When we try to artificially rush Nature along, disaster is the result. Patience, grasshopper.

Nature doesn’t care about humanity though, nature is causality, nature is imperfection and chaos. And as masculine beings, we must correct the injustice of nature. And progress has been always achieved by the progress of technology and science, nature had nothing to do with it. All advancements in civilization and consciousness have been related to great scientists, philosophers and technological achievements. Genetic engineering is merely the next leap of the species into the unknown. So hold onto your hat grasshopper.

I'll probably end up in the mediocre camp with you, who knows.

I'd hope not, for your sake. Some of us in the "mediocre camp" are going to rather upset with those among us who supported the ideas that put us there.

Nah, an advanced species would not be violent towards inferiors, but they would prefer those resources to be given to species with more potential.

So is there going to be food in the mediocre camp, or would that be a waste of resources?

Personally, I’d prefer my offspring to be advanced intellectually, and if he wasn't, then it would be a disappointment because all energy put into him would have been in vain.

If you truly feel that way, may be I suggest a vasectomy? No child deserves the life that would result from an upbringing by parents with such an attitude.

Nature doesn’t care about humanity though, nature is causality, nature is imperfection and chaos. And as masculine beings, we must correct the injustice of nature.

I don't think we do that by putting the bulk of humanity in concentration camps.

And progress has been always achieved by the progress of technology and science, nature had nothing to do with it.

For a QRS-type, you seem to have a remarkably conventional view of what Nature is. Are human beings who create science and technology supernatural?

All advancements in civilization and consciousness have been related to great scientists, philosophers and technological achievements.

And somehow, we've managed to do it all without the help of concentration camps, eugenics, and Dr. Mengele. Go figure.

Genetic engineering is merely the next leap of the species until the unknown.

No, eugenic thinking and its results are already well known. That's why it is discredited worldwide, including among most of the scientists, philosophers, and technologists you mentioned.

So hold onto your hat grasshopper.

I'd rather hold on to my freedom and my life, which are eternally threatened by people who think like you.

Unidian,

I'd hope not, for your sake. Some of us in the "mediocre camp" are going to rather upset with those among us who supported the ideas that put us there.

An elitist that allows himself to be dethroned becomes aware of another throne in the distance, that he wasn’t able to see before because the first throne was blocking his view.

So is there going to be food in the mediocre camp, or would that be a waste of resources?

Don’t worry Unidian, I’m sure they’d at least give us some bread and water, and maybe even a walk-in bake oven to toast our bread…

If you truly feel that way, may be I suggest a vasectomy? No child deserves the life that would result from an upbringing by parents with such an attitude.

I have no plans of having children.

I don't think we do that by putting the bulk of humanity in concentration camps.

I was just kidding, not concentration camps just segregated communities. And this choice would be mutual, as I suspect it will become increasingly difficult for mediocre humans to relate and communicate with the advanced ones. The mediocre ones would have access to the same technology and quality of living, but they would live with others of their own intellectual capacity.

For a QRS-type, you seem to have a remarkably conventional view of what Nature is. Are human beings who create science and technology supernatural?

No they are not supernatural, they are creative, they are able to make things better through the masculine impulse of understanding how things are, and using that knowledge to improve conditions.

Whereas nature is not creative, it is a blind unforgiving process. Causality is indifferent to the suffering and stupidity of human beings.

And somehow, we've managed to do it all without the help of concentration camps, eugenics, and Dr. Mengele. Go figure

.

You’re paranoid, Science will not repeat another Nazi Germany, it will be much more humane than that.

No, eugenic thinking and its results are already well known. That's why it is discredited worldwide, including among most of the scientists, philosophers, and technologists you mentioned.

Any advanced type of thinking is first violently opposed by the masses who initially fear it because they don’t understand it. Eugenics is simply the science of perfecting the species at a biological level, what do you believe the mapping of the genome is going to lead to? A new form of ice cream cone? think, grasshopper.

Don’t worry Unidian, I’m sure they’d at least give us some bread and water, and maybe even a walk-in bake oven to toast our bread…

That's very white of them. Ooops! I mean, very genetically superior of them.

You’re paranoid, Science will not repeat another Nazi Germany, it will be much more humane than that.

Is it possible to recognize "famous last words" before they've become last words? If not, then consider a Jewish German citizen in 1933:

"You're paranoid. The Nazis won't actually kill us. It will be much more humane than that."

The Diary of Anne Frank comes to mind...

Any advanced type of thinking is first violently opposed by the masses who initially fear it because they don’t understand it.

Not always. Sometimes it is opposed because we DO understand it.

Eugenics is simply the science of perfecting the species at a biological level, what do you believe the mapping of the genome is going to lead to? A new form of ice cream cone? think, grasshopper.

Let's hope we aren't so ignorant of history this time around.

On that note, I don't think I'm interested in debating this any further.