GENIUS FORUMS

kennyvii wrote: I have invested in a lot of forums over the last 12 years. Please show me that this forum is not populated by a bunch of "house niggers" please.

I'm begging you.

It's partly carried over from our other discussion. If a man is living his life on his own terms, for his own purposes, serving no human or material master, then I wouldn't call him a "house nigger."

Why would you react so emotionally to this?---it was not even directed towards you.

kennyvii wrote: edit: in case you are curious, which I doubt because of long experience, there seems to be a connection to being a "house nigger" and being intellegent.

How so?

kennyvii wrote:It must be a genetic thing.

Based on what evidence?

kennyvii wrote:So the better the mind you are blessed with the more hard-wired you will be to see things conventionally. Too bad, because even a stupid person can otherwise see that you are wrong.
edit 2: I am holding out for you, though. See you in New Mexico.

Why the hell would you want to go there? You're in the last natural stronghold in the entire United States right now! (Unless Fairbanks, AK, means Fairbanks, Arkansas...I'm not hip to the USA's many acronyms.) Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...

Most people don't realize something until it wallops them over the head (sometimes it takes a few times), and being in such a sparsely populated area, I can see why you'd believe that the world isn't overpopulated; perhap do some reading and see that actuality doesn't agree with your belief---this site has loads of info.

kennyvii wrote: edit 3: You can't grasp this because of your intense desire to be part of the "whole" but if you ever thought to apply your mind to free thought you would realise the obvious; you would transend the mortal; you would see what even a stupid drunk person can see

Conventional thought is free thought? I doubt it---by definition that means another owns your mind. Popular opinion most likely. I assure you that no one owns my mind. At present, I appear to be a majority of one, and I have absolutely no desire to be part of anything bigger than a small tribe; failing that, alone.

Immortality? All things die; it is natural...I don't want to live forever, even if that were possible, which it isn't. My atoms will persist, though, and that's good enough for me; my corpse will serve a purpose for other forms of life.

kennyvii wrote: edit 3: it is fine to conclude that "life" is complex but it isn't really, is it...? Actucally it is very simple. Dumb people run from this and intelligent people ignor it. But what would a genius do?

Dunno. I've never met a genius yet. Life as a whole = simple; up close, it's infinitely complex. Microbe = simple; human animal = quite complex. Depends on your point of view and how much beer you've guzzled ;)

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Let me redefine what we are talking about: I am suggesting that a return to a hunter-gatherer state is too extreme of a position, I’m not against nature walks. And I agree with you that the present work week in civilization is feminine and irrational.

I don't believe in anything being too extreme (over 6 billion humans on this planet is extreme, no?) in an extreme situation, but I'm not suggesting the entire human species depart all cities and rural areas immediately and return to what's the left of the natural world---that would be insane.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: You can cut out the hedonism and keep some of the best technology, that is my main point.

You can also theoretically stand upside-down and balance perfectly for an hour only on your pinky's fingernail, but common sense suggests that 999,999 times out of one million, you'll fall on your ass.

How exactly, in this wonderful cyber-fairy-land you envision, do you cut out the hedonism when it's almost as profitable as technological "advancements?" How do you prevent it from being exploited, oh, say, into even more horrific weapons of mass destruction? Or does a belch-guided teraton warhead give you a stiffy as well?

It seems that you haven't thought this little technocratic utopia of yours out very well...

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Oh come on, the whole point of philosophy is liberation from suffering, not reveling in it. I wont suffer on a matter of principle.

1. The whole point? What the fuck are you going about now? The point of all philosophy is to be as comfortable as possible? Roll up in a blanket, eat a Twinkie, and pop a handful of opiates---you have no further need for 'philosophy.' That's as liberated from suffering as you can get, my dear hedonist.

2. Who said anything about reveling?

3. What the hell does principle have to do with anything? I got into this slightly here.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Have you ever considered that technology could evolve to a state, where it has the capacity to regenerate without a lot of human effort?

Fantasy thinking, straight out of the 1950s. Seems to entrace every wide-eyed generation, this current one especially; total junkies to it, defending it so irrationally and spastically. I'm not getting into another "tech is teh shit"--"nuh uh!" debate with you---go wank off to your Star Wars models and get it out of your system. And another thing, the next post in which you pervert the meaning of evolution---despite all the times I've already demonstrated that your usage of the term is moronic---I'll probably just ignore your post. This is getting fucking ridiculous.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: That which is ever-creative, and that which does not suffer based on principle, that which lives to overcome every form of suffering.

WHAT THE FUCK? Could you rephrase that---this time without one hand holding the crackpipe? Nevermind, I will:

Intelligence: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

Ryan Rudolph wrote: The current car seems like a problem because of how crude is it, but it is simply a template for what is yet to come.

I worked in autobody years ago---there's nothing much "better" about cars today compared to twenty years ago. They're made more cheaply (out of fucking plastic!), they wear out sooner, they're right-offs almost automatically now (such flimsy frames); it costs more for every service imaginable, and over-complication has led to them breaking down with absurd frequency. They just look cooler and go faster---but they're total shit, and you pay a lot more for this shit.

Strictly speaking, the automobile was nearly perfected with Ford's model---everything since has been redundant, not to mention the smog and pollution and injuries and death and damages and hacking up of the natural landscape to make superhighways, et cetera, ever since then; but I guess that's acceptable to you "in the name of progress?"

The entire industry was a fucking waste of resources, a monument to human stupidity and excess and lust for more. We could have put all that technology and material into a space station from which to launch manned exploration of the solar system; we would have had unfathomable knowledge of the universe, as well as colonies on the moon, Mars, perhaps even moons of Saturn or Jupiter by now; instead, we have dizzy speculationism and quantum gobbledegook...

Nobody needs a car, anyway.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The smart-car and hybrids are only the beginning. What do you think will exist in 500 years?

Plenty of deserts, wastelands, 200-degree evenings, and some forms of life within the stinking green-and-orange-marbled ocean, very adaptive and resistant types (to extreme levels of salt and residual toxicity, et cetera), maybe fishes and such far enough down; on the surface: bacteria, some bugs in not-so-contaminated soil, perhaps a reptile or two and possibly some rats. That's about it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: will the coming technology be as harmful on the environment?

Much moreso, I expect.

Nordicvs wrote:

Fantasy thinking, straight out of the 1950s. Seems to entrace every wide-eyed generation, this current one especially; total junkies to it, defending it so irrationally and spastically. I'm not getting into another "tech is teh shit"--"nuh uh!" debate with you---go wank off to your Star Wars models and get it out of your system. And another thing, the next post in which you pervert the meaning of evolution---despite all the times I've already demonstrated that your usage of the term is moronic---I'll probably just ignore your post. This is getting fucking ridiculous

You realize that you're basing your final conclusions on only 200 years of accelerated technological activity?

Nordicvs wrote:

I worked in autobody years ago---there's nothing much "better" about cars today compared to twenty years ago. They're made more cheaply (out of fucking plastic!), they wear out sooner, they're right-offs almost automatically now (such flimsy frames); it costs more for every service imaginable, and over-complication has led to them breaking down with absurd frequency. They just look cooler and go faster---but they're total shit, and you pay a lot more for this shit.

I’m not so sure, Honda Hybrids are far superior to a 1965 Ford, surely you can see this progress in terms of reliability, handling, fuel economy, and so on? Newer cars have censors that can detect malfunctions, and eventually, with the aid of nanotechnology, nanobots will be able to repair cars with little human assistance.

You judge prematurely, I say.

My point is that you cannot be absolutely certain that technology will lead to the total destruction of man and the planet, although it is a possibility.

I’ll admit that I cannot be absolutely certain, as long as you admit the same. You’re convictions are a little too rigid in my opinion.

Put yourself in a place where you’re not certain, and rethink it out again, and you will realize you’re in error by claiming absolute certainty.

You may see a boulder heading down a cliff, but you cannot see what is at the bottom of the cliff.

You are merely taking the cynthical stance, and I am taking the optimistic stance.

Way back on the 25th Jan Katy said: IQ scores aren't really usable outside of modern western culture. They depend too much on social constructs and stuff to be of any use in determining the intelligence of other societies.

I have to disagree with this. Articles like the following lead me to beleive it is just dogooders who believe in equality who promote such views to others.

http://www.econ.ucsd.edu/seminars/0607s ... _paper.pdf

Ryan asked: Jamesh, do you think that if a northern white female copulates with a southern black male that has these genetic pitfalls, that the species is better off because the child’s genome would produce a more complex neurological brain structure than if two blacks reproduced?

If this is true then interracial mating could actually improve the genepool.

Not really sure on this one. Elizabeth's response seemed pretty good - meaning sometimes it would improve the offsprings IQ and sometimes it wouldn't. If there were studies done on this topic, with positive rersults then I think you'd find that causasians were more often than not actually selecting male blacks of a higher intelligence level than themselves. Not sure we could be certain the studies were done fairly.

Overall I would say limited or controlled external imput into the gene pool is of significant benefit over the long term - prticularly in relation to physical matters - Sth American lost millions because they did not have ther genetic mixing to handle plague type viruses when the Europenas came. Countries with the most varied interracial mixing over the last 2000 years have done the best economically, and that article indicates a correlation between economics and IQ, but all the same China and South Korea have the highest IQ's and they have had limited interracial mixing in that time.