GENIUS FORUMS

I recently noticed that that there seems to be a relationship between libertarian values, and technological/scientific superiority in the world.

For instance: The values of the USA especially on the republican side are as follows - very low taxes, minimal government, minimal regulation, no caps on the rich, very little restriction on big business, and so on.

The entire American economy is geared towards building vast amounts of wealth, but the middle-classes and the lower-classes suffer as a result. These classes sustain a system with their blood and sweat, and their overall quality of life is lower than that of governments with more socialist values.

However, the major positive aspect of the USA is that it produces such a surplus of revenue that companies are ahead of the rest of the world in terms of scientific research, and the latest technological innovation. In essence, the wealth at the top accelerates the rate of technological progress and scientific discovery.

However, the overall quality of life for each regular citizen suffers. This can be seen if the USA is compared to Canada. In Canada, we have more socialist ideals, higher taxes, more caps on big business, more government, higher taxes on the rich, but as a result there is much less surplus revenue to invest into things like scientific research and technological innovation. Canada has always lagged behind the USA in this regard.

So Canada’s citizens have more safety nets and their overall quality of life is probably much better than the average US citizen, but the USA are leaders of scientific discovery and technological innovation.

So these two factors seem to play off each other somewhat, so which one should we value more? Scientific/technological innovation? Or Socialist protectionism to increase the overall well being of each citizen? Or is there a balance that can be struck between the two, Japan seems like a possible example of the middle-ground between liberalism spending and socialist protectionism -

Quotes from Wikipeda:

Japan is a leading nation in the fields of scientific research, technology, machinery and medical research. Nearly 700,000 researchers share a US$130 billion research and development budget, the third largest in the world.[59]

Only in Japan, by far the most developed of Asian countries, did traditional socialist organizations become firmly established. The Socialist Party of Japan, formed in 1901, endured varying periods of repression and harassment until 1946, when it won more than 90 seats in the Diet to become Japan's third-strongest party, and a year later its leader, Katayama Tetsu, became prime minister…

since the late nineteenth century, the judicial system has been largely based on the civil law of Europe, notably France and Germany. For example, in 1896, the Japanese government established a civil code based on the German model.

I recently noticed that that there seems to be a relationship between libertarian values, and technological/scientific superiority in the world.

A wise ruler keeps his subject's heads empty and their bellies full. -Lao Tzu

Ryan you are right. When you play Civilization you have a money ratio to regulate, and it has the categories of luxury (meaning more money towards citizens standard of living) and science. The more you put on science the faster your technological advances are, but the citizens are less happy.

There is some research in sociology, neurology, and psychology, augmented by results in anthropology, paleontology, and archeology. If we assume that innovation creates wealth more efficiently, then a social system that maximized mental development and creativity would pay off in all other fields.

The data we have so far suggests it'd be best to raise children in villages; their instinctive hominid behavior patterns were never designed to cope with urban life. Their immune systems never evolved to cope with exposure to so many contagious diseases or exposure to so many chemicals. Neurology shows the damage caused by dietary deficiency and contamination, so the kids should be raised on 'organic' food grown in soils that have the right mix of trace minerals and biota that get absorbed by the veggies, and then utilized by some of the 150 or so neurotransmitters involved in the laying down of new neural pathways during learning.

The boomers were the last generation of kids raised on food from family farms. We see the level of innovation and artistic creativity decline along with the rise of agribusiness and the use of petrochemicals.

Villages operated as coops in a network of capitalist free markets that each village competed in. So, while it is 'liberal' in the personal face to face level, it is libertarian with regard to the entire trading network. And now that we know something of the DNA, we can avoid the inbreeding problems villages had, Village women could also avail themselves of fertility clinic services so that the next generation will grow up to be even more competitive and innovative in the wider trading networks.

Daybrown wrote:

Neurology shows the damage caused by dietary deficiency and contamination, so the kids should be raised on 'organic' food grown in soils that have the right mix of trace minerals and biota that get absorbed by the veggies, and then utilized by some of the 150 or so neurotransmitters involved in the laying down of new neural pathways during learning.

Things are getting much better in many cases though. In Canada, it is now law that baby food must be completely organic, which is a major step. And I’m not certain about if this trend is happening in other countries.

There seems to be a distinct dichotomy in terms of those who ignorantly destroy their bodies and minds, as well as their children, and those that are very health conscious and take care of themselves, and their children.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Things are getting much better in many cases though. In Canada, it is now law that baby food must be completely organic, which is a major step. And I’m not certain about if this trend is happening in other countries.

There seems to be a distinct dichotomy in terms of those who ignorantly destroy their bodies and minds, as well as their children, and those that are very health conscious and take care of themselves, and their children.

Yes, I have some hope, but even more concern. The ignorant you refer to are not stupid so much as in psychological denial, and 'education' is not going to help. The spin doctors in the media, and script writers for the TV shows, could do a lot to change minds and turn things around, but their own paychecks depend on the ad revenues from the vendors of the substances that are causing the problems.

There is so much money and corporate profits involved that I dont know where to go to get a scientifically unbiased assessment of what is going on and the scope of the problem. The boomers are about to retire, and they are the healthiest generation; as the young lard butts we see everywhere move into middle age, the diabetes and cardiac problems are going to go thru the roof, and I dont see the numbers of nurses we are producing nearly enuf to cope with that.

I heard Greenspan say that it wont matter how much money we throw at the healthcare system if there are not enuf nurses to deliver it, and there is a shortage of nurses already. I heard about a study on aspertame on the radio, which is in all the artificially sweetened soda. Somebody kept rats alive for a 3rd year (studies on substances normally quit at 2 years), and when they did that, the cancer rate ran thru the roof. Many governments have banned it, but lobbyists have prevented any action in congress.

Again, that could cause a massive cancer epidemic such that it wont matter whether we have private healthcare or government healthcare; there are just not enuf caretakers to deliver treatment.

I really need to stop drinking that garbage even though I rarely do so.

Of course I looked it up at one point in hopes of learning whether it is essentially poison.

Then again anything the large corporations spit out these days and try to pass off as suitable for human consumption is almost certainly harmful to a larger degree.


When faced with the choice of high fructose corn syrup, or aspartame, which is the lesser of two evils?

Pure cane sugar flavored soda exists but really I guess none of that was meant to be consumed on a regular basis.


Really should switch to some Ethiopian coffee since all I drink those types of sodas for is the caffeine.


http://www.Smalltimes.com

High fructose corn syrup *could* be metabolized without leading to metastatic cancer if the diet includes the appropriate set of trace minerals and micronutrients in the veggies from the biota in natural soils. And combined with enuf exercise.

Aspertame, so far as I can tell, depends more on your own DNA markers as to whether you'll get cancer or not. AFAIK, coffee is a much better bet on both counts. Altho, there is a trend twards real fruit juices.

I recall a rat study. given soda, the rats hit on it, drinking as much as they can, and returning as often as they can. Great for company profits. Given real fruit juices, the trace minerals and micronutrients tell the limbic system he's had enuf, and he goes away satisfied, and dont come back til way later.

This has a lot to do with obesity, that natural foods have all these other compounds that have a powerful effect on the neurotransmitters, even at homeopathic levels, that tell the limbic system to shut down the hunger mode. Stripping them out of what is sold to the public has driven up consumption and done a lot for corporate profits. Course, we cant interfere with corporate profits, and wont until the whole economy collapses from the cost of healthcare. Then, they'll solve the problem just by dragging the bastards out to be shot.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

I recently noticed that that there seems to be a relationship between libertarian values, and technological/scientific superiority in the world.

A wise ruler keeps his subject's heads empty and their bellies full. -Lao Tzu

Lao Tzu was no genius nor was he a true leader, unless he was being ironic.