Slashdot Mirror
'Eco-Anarchists' Targeting Nuclear and Nanotech Workers
scibri writes, quoting Nature: "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM's nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Another branch of the group attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, last week in an attempt to disrupt employees of nearby defense technology firms (no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways). A report by Swiss intelligence says such loosely affiliated groups are increasingly working together."
That bombs and guns are a product of science? Or is that part of their message - to destroy science with science? Fucking assholes.
I can't wait for Captain-Anti-Planet. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Profit!
Some people fear what they don't want to understand....
It's only going to get worse.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.
Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
I would bet that the group is filled with not terribly tech-savvy people which means they're definitely going to get caught very quickly.
The author of "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" spends a few pages at the start of the essay stressing that he just means paranoid Style, not clinical paranoia, and that it is hardly limited to America, but has cropped up all over the world.
Well, it sure seems to be alive and well in Switzerland and Mexico, to name two places that have suffered these attacks. The rhetoric in the Mexican note, about nanotech, from the "ITS" ("Individuals Tending to Savagery", at least they're honest) rings with your standard conspiracy-theory stuff about it ending the world. The anti-nuclear rhetoric in the other is similar towards nuclear armageddon, with the deaths from the "European Fukushima" just around the corner. (Amazing how France has avoided them for 40 years of 77% nuke power generation).
From the original "paranoid style" essay:
"The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization . . . he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish." ...that pretty neatly explains how they can go around blowing up engineers and professors. Since the "paranoid style" essay has become popular again lately because it also jogs memories of some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps or whatever, it's worth noting that this is where that kind of thinking eventually takes you if pursued to a logical conclusion. The author also stresses that the "paranoid style" is not a left or right thing, but found on both sides.
What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
It's a great co-incidence that they decided to name it Olga like my ex-wife. Fitting name, really. Wonder if they will fail just as badly.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Funny they had to add "informal" in the name of their federation :)
How does anarchists organize a meeting btw?
Is it just me that finds the 'label' Eco-Anarchist' to be as blatant of an oxymoron as 'politically correct', 'Patriot Act', and 'military intelligence'?
I guess 'weasel wording' is the new trend....:-(
Eco-Anarchist......Hmmm...anarchy to the ecosystem?!?!?...does not make sense in the context of their stated goals.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Except to those who want to take away of what little freedom we have left.
Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
FGD 135
Here's some of the ramblings from this anarchist group. Almost reads like the speech the bad guy gives in some C-level movie. I think next time I have to give a speech to my employees I'm going to start off with "human beings are made of flesh and dreams" and see if anyone laughs.
"Human beings are made of flesh and dreams. Our dream is that of a humanity free from every form of slavery, that grows in harmony with nature. A dream that we make live in the moment in which we fight to realize it. Our dream has for us a name, âoeanarchy,â and we are ready to gamble everything in order to realize it. We are not alone in this adventure, in the whole world a new anarchy is blossoming opposite of an ideological and cynical anarch-ism, an anarch-ism empty of any breath of life, which only finds its realization in theory and attendance at assemblies and manifestations, the whole cowardice of a citizenism that stinks of death. A new anarchy is rising from the ruins of this anarch-ism, thousands and thousands of cells that speak among each other through thousands and thousands of actions".
Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.
...or does this story feel like something from the Deus Ex universe? Holy shit, it's the (dystopian) future!
A taste of their own medicine would resolve the issue handily.
Luddites are scum.
It'll probably just make me a target for making fun of them, but... IAFIRF? Really? And as long as we're picking, isn't "Informal" superfluous? What would a "Formal" Anarchist federation look like, anyway?
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
I see anarchism as a valid viewpoint but shooting random people doesn't create anarchism, at least not the kind you actually want. It just makes people think that all anarchists are stupid.
It is sad that we have so many people thinking they have profound understanding of things they actually know nothing about. It is actually slightly true that all things have a negative aspect but in the case of nano tech and nuclear power they can both do far more good than any harm likely to flow from them. A simple example if we had no nuclear power plants we would have far more coal power plants. The use of coal murders people in large numbers. Take a look at W. Virginia's official sites about fishing. One meal a year is the maximum of fish allowed in a diet in many streams and lakes while the rest is one meal every six months. In essence there is no place in W. Va. that coal has not loaded with mercury and lead to the extent that all surface water is now toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites
The more we progress, the more we still get stupid ass people who are stuck in the mud of the past.
Yes, I'm talking about the movie and music industries, but it applies to these weirdo's also.
Be seeing you...
/soapbox/ when you send mail bombs and make assassination attempts you're a fucking terrorist. this whole pussy-footing around the label is horse shit. Calling a terrorist an 'anarchist' because you don't want to use the word terrorist is as horse-shit as saying only white people can be a racist and is right up there with calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant. Whats next? Calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists? Piss or get off the pot.. they're fucking terrorists. Anarchists reject organized authority and prefer mass chaos. An 'Eco-Anarchist' would be someone who would want to screw up the planet, not assassinate people to 'save' it from the big bad corporation or science. Calling them anything other than terrorists is a complete disservice to anarchists. I know a few anarchists and theyre hardly sending letter bombs and trying to assassinate people. They simply think that if we got rid of all the laws on the books people would step up and whip the shit out of their neighbors that get out of line and the problems would solve themselves. These eco-assholes are just terrorists of opportunity /endSoapbox/
These people are morons.
You are not a Anarchist when you are willing to use violence to force people to conform to your personal agenda. You are a Fascist.
What the OP called "cognitive dissonance" isn't limited to murderers, terrorists, and other violent basketcases. It extends even to relatively well-adjusted individuals. Take for example, Albert Einstein. Brilliant in formulating the Theory of Relativity, he resisted for a long time the idea of quantum chaos. "God does not play dice." These eco-anarchists might have the insight to see the dangers of science while being unable to the see consequences of their own actions.
When anarchist Émile Henry detonated a bomb in a cafe, people asked him
why he hurt so many innocent people. The psychopath replied
"..there are no innocent bourgeois."
This is indeed how anarchists think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Henry_(anarchist)
I normally oppose capital punishment,
but it is the only way to deal with these inhuman
scumbags.
Several of you have helpfully provided info and links to educate me on what 'Eco-Anarchists' were about.
I truly thank all of you for your desire and willingness to 'give a helping hand' to another. /. originally, and has kept me here.
That's the main thing that attracted me to
*the other shoe drops*
Most of this info I was aware of.
I was merely, and only, pointing out the trend in labeling getting more oxymoronic lately. At least that's how I see it.
Kudos for an informative and potentially helpful comment, nicely worded, concise, and polite. :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities
Do you have any evidence or at least a couple of examples of that?
Incest has genetic risks. It actually has a downside. Although in at least some places you can have an incestuous marriage if you don't have kids.
Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities. Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed. When you guys can figure out homosexual marriage you can start working on that one.
AIDS isn't a downside?
http://www.ifatreefallsfilm.com/
Really good documentary on a few of the ELF arsons back in the day. I'd suggest it to anyone browsing these comments, looking for more.
Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities.
I'm afraid that Mormons haven't been polygamist since the late 1800s (when the US outlawed the practice.) I'm thinking you are referring to the splinter group that split off from the larger Church back then and refused to obey the law. They are collectively known as the FLDS Church and do not use the name Mormon.
The Eco- Anarchists are a bunch of pussy cowards. They refuse to target the hard targets like the people that club baby seals, oil companies, mines, etc.. I.E. people that are armed and have explosives.
They are nothing but a bunch of pussy thugs trying to harass people that are easy to harass.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In fact you don't want even one scientist ganging up against you. You know, the kind that gets into the dark side.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The ones around here give the sons a $1000 when kicking them out. The real problem is the lack of choice for the 14 year old brides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The genetic risks that you mention that are associated with incest are not as high as society would have you think. This link mentions that if we should pass laws governing sex based on genetic risk, then we should disallow sexual intercourse between the elderly, between those with common traits for genetic diseases, as well as between genetically similar groups (for example, between Ashkenazi Jews or Safardic Jews). And why not make genetic screening before having children mandatory while we're at it?
I believe that incest, homosexuality, and polygamy all suffer a stigma brought on by the bible and that the laws were written because of this stigma, and not for any rational reason. Yes, it would be better for society as a whole if certain people didn't have children, but do we really want the government to tell us who those people are?
Even if one were to say that we want the government to control who can have children and who can not, I would like to point out that in today's day and age, sexual intercourse does not have to have a significant chance of impregnation and therefore should not be outlawed under any consensual circumstance.
The blurb starts with "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists." But then one of the links is to Raytheon. By and large Raytheon does not have scientists working for it studying black holes and the like. It has engineers, and those engineers are designing missiles, to be used in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth. I see mention that eco-anarchists are launching violent attacks when they shut down train tracks, not much mention that engineers at Raytheon are involved in violent attacks all over the world.
Also the "nuclear engineering" executive mentioned in the blurb was working at Finmeccanica, another merchant in the death trade. He's an executive at another company in the death trade. Not a scientist, not even an engineer. Yet Nature headlines the article "Anarchists attack science".
There has been bombing, executions and sabotages against Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear power program which at one time the US establishment whole-heartedly endorsed. Why the hue and cry about an attack on a nuclear executive in Italy, which is an "attack on science", but not a word about this. Isn't shooting nuclear scientists in Iran an "attack on science"? Where are the articles on Slashdot, Nature and so forth bemoaning this?
It's just simple propaganda. An executive making money on explosives killing people is himself attacked. So the lie must come into play, it is an attack on science. Disrupting Raytheon's blood profits by shutting down railroads for a day are a violent attack on scientists.
From a moral standpoint, I have no problem with what these bombers and gunmen are doing. At best it would be justified, at worst it is simply eye-for-an-eye, tit-for-tat - one band of killers attacking another band of killers. I feel more secure that people are out there attacking Raytheon, Finmeccanica etc. executives than not. So mark that down, NSA listeners who are now monitoring domestically due to the Patriot Act.
While I feel it's certainly morally justified, or at least equivalent, from a tactical and strategic standpoint I don't see this as a necessary thing for the average American to do. There's plenty of legitimate and legal work that can be done - organization, education and the like, which is ultimately more effective. Even at Reagan's height HE was the one who had to go underground to fund Contras, not the domestic opposition to him. With elections, the first amendment, right to assemble and so forth still intact, I can't see much tactical or strategic reason for an American to do this sort of thing in the US. In Italy, with its history ( P2, Gladio, elections fixed by foreign powers) it may make more sense, I don't know the situation on the ground there as well. The people who lit bombs in the 1960s like Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton etc. were generally children of the wealthy, working class activists like the Black Panthers and other organizations were not at that level of militancy, they felt free breakfast programs and organization and education was the important thing.
These are luddite terrorists not anarchists. You can be an anarchist and not hate scientists. Their anti-science position has nothing to do with anarchism in the political sense of the word.
If somehow both parties just stick to their partner the risks are much lower.
Quarantine works for straight and gay people.
Some here have fallen under the spell that somehow environmentalist would associate themselves with these ghouls. eco-anarchist is an oxymoron.Look up the word anarchist in the dictionary -its nihilism and destruction of any organized system. Ecology is an organized thus the anti-thesis of anarchy.
BTW most 'environmentalists' are proponents of science and evidence based decision making.
Some here have fallen under the spell that somehow environmentalist would associate themselves with these ghouls. The term 'eco-anarchist' is an oxymoron.Look up the word anarchist in the dictionary -it's nihilism,refutation, and destruction of any organized system. Ecology is an organized system thus the anti-thesis of anarchy.
BTW most 'environmentalists' are proponents of science and evidence based decision making.
I'm completely in favor of people's rights to incest, so long as they are not producing defective humans.
Do you blame the inventor of scalpels because someone used one in a murder? Scalpels are also used to save people. The products of scientific research can be used for good or evil. Control (and therefore, responsibility) is in the hands of the wealthy/powerful.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'd outlaw sexual intercourse for Rick Santorum, until he stops trying to legislate everyone else's sexual practices.
These people in the Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front are just delusional idiots.
-- At least compared to the International Revolutionary Front of Anarchist Federations who really hate all these imperialist scientists (excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture).
Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities.
I'm afraid that Mormons haven't been polygamist since the late 1800s (when the US outlawed the practice.) I'm thinking you are referring to the splinter group that split off from the larger Church back then and refused to obey the law. They are collectively known as the FLDS Church and do not use the name Mormon.
but they call themselves true mormons.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
If anarchists ruled the power plants, cities would go dark.
If Islam controlled the Louvre - will the Mona Lisa survive? One man's art is another man's idol...
http://memegenerator.net/instance/21120659
You do realize that by thinking the way you do you are only demonstrating that you are exactly like the people you hate, perhaps worse?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with surprise attacks on civilians meant to kill, then you and your enemy are the same, and so whomever wins, it makes no difference. no moral progress has been achieved
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with measured wisdom and forceful lawful action and political agitation, then you are morally superior to your enemy, and if you prevail in the court of public opinion and the resulting political will, then you have achieved moral progress
but killing war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists by surprise in civilian settings only makes you the moral equivalent of war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Homosexuality has a survival risk for the human race. If everybody were homosexual, the human race would die out. That of course would be OK with eco-anarchists. No more people, no more ecological problems.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Your link is kind of suspect - the big headline at the top of the page isn't supported by any of the quotes.
Having kids with a close relative DOES increase that child's risk of genetic diseases. As for mere sex with a relative, laws against that vary quite a bit, from not illegal at all to punishable by life in prison. Yes, some places are more backward in that regard than others. I'm not sure you can blame the bible for it though - there's plenty of incest in the bible.
That's fantastic if they kick them out when they're 18. If it's when they're 14, it's a bit of a problem. The brides are indeed a bigger problem though.
And that's why not everyone is homosexual. There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual. That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality, so the truth is likely the exact opposite of what you said.
The Bible was not originally written in English and all Englsh translations should be take with a grain of salt.
Translation in an absolute sense is of course not possible, especially between two languages as different as English and Classical Hebrew. People often naively assume that two separate words in Hebrew will isomorphically map to two distinct English words, eg, HRG to kill and RTsCh to murder. It isn't that easy.
It's "thou shalt not MURDER"
Not necessarily, no. Had you bothered actually to read the page you cite all the way to the end you would have found the author arguing something very different, namely: tempting though it might be to translate RTsCh as 'murder' ...
As usual careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance.
Indeed ...
[W]e may appreciate that the translation "thou shalt not kill" was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.
The real problem here, IMHO, is a desire to shoehorn the meaning of Hebrew words into a translation that will conveniently eliminate the apparent logical inconsistencies as to when the Tanakh proscribes and prescribes killing. But the Bible is not book, it's a library (and even each 'book' of the OT is not necessarily a book). Searching for logical consistency across an entire library is likely to be a thankless endeavour.
Libertarians and anarchists are rather far apart in philosophy. Do not confuse the two.
It makes perfect sense for anarchists to be blowing things up, none at all for libertarians.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps
Those thoughts have nothing to do with the Tea Party. Some members may believe those things, but the Tea Party agenda is simply reduced spending, smaller government.
A far better example would have been Occupy and the rabid fears the large majority have about business and the police. That's because without a clear core message such as the Tea Party has, the extremists end up forming the core of your group instead of occupying the fringes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These guys have been brought up in a closed community so even getting kicked out at 18 must be traumatic, especially getting kicked out for something as normal as interest in girls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No, the sons are the bigger problem. In a country where polygamy is normal most of the men can't have a girlfriend/wife/kids. This leads to horrible social problems (murder/rape/terrorism). You'll never calm the middle east till you ban polygamy. The middle east is exporting terrorism to the USA so I think it's a bigger issue to Americans than a small number of girls.
So who's hotter, your mom or your sister?
There is video footage of the "masked black-clad men" you describe from a summit meeting in Montebello Quebec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA
They were later admitted to have been police, but nothing was done about it.
Even universal homosexuality probably wouldn't lead to the human race dying out. But homosexuality is so far from universal that it's ridiculous to bring up "survival risk", even if you forget how biology works (hint: gay people can have children).
When we relatively soon will move from representative democracy to democracy, thanks to technological advances, there will be big changes. Some of them will truly be the people's wish and some of them will be stolen votes, like today.
Non-violence is simply not enough. What we need is more bombs and bullets. That's the language power speaks. But caveat emptor, governments and large corporations they serve possess a very large number of bombs and bullets.
For a healthier society there is a great need for bulletproof e-voting. And Wikileaks on our current corporate plutocratic masters. Then and only then we can judge the real merits of a democracy.
“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." Matthew 12:25b
If everybody were homosexual, sperm dontation and inseminations would be sacred. Think about it.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I really hope they are not using this newfangled "Internet" thing to coordinate their attacks. Unless they are using devices with vacuum tubes only, the computers and cell phones they use are definitely products of nanotechnology -- the popular sense of 'nanotech' simply involves the application of the same Integrated Circuit fabrication technologies to MEMS (Micro Electro Mechanical) devices.
The idea that these devices will start self-reproducing has the same amount of credibility that computers will gain consciousness by themselves all of a sudden...
(Neither is necessarily impossible, but highly unlikely)
Just what the world needs. More dumb motherfuckers who think they know everything about everything and how the entire world should be run.
There should be a global task force to find these dog raping shit rags, and slit their useless throats on television. Caption: this is what happens to filthy, anti science sacks of pig shit. No fucking mercy for these scum. Brutal death only.
If somehow both parties just stick to their partner the risks are much lower..
The risks are zero actually.
Just a group of them, adding group hysteria to the pot of utter lunacy!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Try putting it this way "Isn't it ironic how police have to act legally even though the criminals have broken the law?". No, it's not even slightly ironic.
Irony would be if the anarchist group became so big they started electing leaders and created a constitution to govern their organisation.
Problem solved.
Thank You.
ironic captcha: menial
I'd say 'rounds to zero', but not actually zero. There ARE a few ways to get HIV other than sex; the blood supply SHOULD be clean(but vanishingly rare accidents do happen, there's yea old 'sharing needles', and the occasional cracked person (such as that dentist) trying to spread the infection.
There's a few other diseases that are 'mostly' spread sexually, but not always, as well.
I don't read AC A human right
Indeed. All the anarchists I know love science because advancements can help everyone be less reliant on each other.
Also, if you can't s/anarchist/hippie/ then they probably aren't anarchists.
...use violence.
Nobody wants to side with your goal anymore.
And those who do, are only there for the violence.
These... 'anarchists' are a handful of idiots, supplemented with warmongers.
I wonder howmany FBI agents the group consists of...
Yeah, not only is America importing oil, it's also importing terrorism. And what do they do? Instead of supporting the domestic terrorism industry, they try to fight against those who import it! With enough domestic terrorism, the market would be satiated, and the terrorism importers would not have the slightest chance! Fight import of terrorism: Support your local terrorists! ;-)
No. That is a too simple view of evolution and genetics. Something being common does not necessary show that something is beneficial for survival. Look at e.g.: Sickle-cell disease(SCD). Very common in Sub-Saharan Africa, but not helpful for survival. SCD happens in individuals with two copies of the gene, while one copy of the gene makes individuals more resistant to malaria. Genes can often have multiple effects, some beneficial, some not.
So it is possible that homosexuality is beneficial for survival but it could also be just a side effect of something that is actually beneficial.
There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual.
This is also problematic reasoning. There are also significant numbers of species(ants,...) where most individuals are infertile. But that sure does not mean that mass infertility would be beneficial for humans, too. Whether something is beneficial or not most often also depends on other traits and the environment of species.
Jan
>>This leads to horrible social problems (murder/rape/terrorism)
Correlation is not causation. Just because polygamy and terrorism are both common in the middle east does not mean they cause each other.
Counterexample: China has had polygamy for roughly 3000 years, and never turned to murder/rape/terrorism (or at least in significantly higher numbers than other countries).
>>In a country where polygamy is normal most of the men can't have a girlfriend/wife/kids.
Nope. You have to look at the math of it. In Islamic countries, only very rich men can support multiple wives (each one gets their own house + servants). So if the top 1% of the population takes 3 wives each, that doesn't make a significant difference for the remaining 99%.
Don't forget that during most of human history human survival was not as easy as it is now. In the past people often had a huge number of children, but still the population often did not increase because so many children died before they reached adulthood and own children. So it is not unlikely that even a birthrate that is just 20% lower would have been a real survival risk.
Jan
Except that you might as well say "if everyone grew wings out their asses, why the airlines would go out of business!" because both are equally likely. One doesn't get to choose what sex one finds sexually attractive, that is just the way we are. Some studies have suggested it all comes down to hormones in the mother during the first few months of pregnancy but no matter what the cause just as there is no damned way in hell i could ever look at a guy as a possible partner and my GF said if she and a lesbian were the last two humans on earth that lesbian would be awful lonely, so too does a gay simply not feel any sexual attraction to the opposite gender. it just doesn't work.
As for TFA, what do these morons want us to do, live in mud huts and eat grass? Renewables at this point simply can NOT take the place of nuclear and fossil fuels and best estimates put it at around 30% if we maxed them out. That of course is just looking at today's energy needs, not the constantly ramping up power requirements. How many want to bet these douchebags go home to their ACed apts and laptops to bitch about science and tech? The simple fact is we need scientists more than ever, including nuclear science because we simply have limited fossil fuels which WILL run out. every tech we can use that will buy us more time to figure out how to truly make renewable energy work is a good thing and frankly we need to be building test reactors using the latest designs to find out which is the safest and can hopefully reprocess the waste we already have piling up. Morons like this can call themselves anything they want but all they are is idiots, plain and simple.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The German couple with 2 (out of 4) disabled children can give you quite an example of the risks. 50% is alot... and yet it's a small sample compared.
You can argue that disabled people have an higher risk when having children, or for older women the risk might be higher as well but both cases don't get the same treatment, and that argument I would get... but incest a "stigma from the bible"? Really? The genetic risk exists, no question there. It's proven, by knowledge, by genetic models and by living, breathing proof. Hard to beat that.
At least some one did notice.
Because we're talking about attacks of Nanotech and Nuclear workers, and you've just derailed a derailed Star War's meme joke with this Culture War bullshit.
Honestly, can we go three stories without some American Cult-War/Political derailing in the first thread. Can the mods please apply the "Offtopic" option instead of giving an "Interesting" rating to every random brain-fart?
And could people at least attempt to re-rail derailed threads back to the topic. For example: "Yeah Eco-anarchists. basically jerks who think their own views and options are more important than all other topics, and who will inject themselves drastically into even completely unrelated matters just to gain attention for their cause." So, let's get back to the topic.
May the Maths Be with you!
Although I'm not sure which bit is more amusing, the idea of a federation of anarchists or the line "no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways". The answer to the rhetorical question is alsmost certainly "no".
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
...when people don't need to work for food, shelter or medical care.
They get bored, complacent and in some cases act out aggression.
It's like a monkey in captivity at the zoo. The key is a well balanced system--you don't want then to serfs who will never feed pride or happiness, but you also don't want to just hand them life's base necessities. They monkey needs to work for it's banana, but not so hard that it's miserable and half starved.
They can join the military. Boot camp is an equal opportunity traumatizer.
That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality...
Such as what? Better interior design sense? Greater skill at hairdressing? Pretentiousness?
Counterexample: China has had polygamy for roughly 3000 years, and never turned to murder/rape/terrorism (or at least in significantly higher numbers than other countries).
But it didn't emerge like Europe did, though it had many strong points.
Almost every nation of the past had some form of polygamy, with the notable exception of Rome that was strictly monogamist. Germans were polygamist (Charlemagne had multiple wives and concubines), but the Church (ultimately being a Roman institution) tried to enforce monogamy troughout all the Middle Age, succeding at the end, so that all Europe became monogamist. Communism, being an European phylosophy, inherited the monogamist thing.
But what about those laws against "discrimination based on sexual orientation" ?
If an employer cannot fire a homosexual kindergarten teacher, then, by your logic,
he should also be forbidden to fire a kindergarten teacher who has sex with
his elderly, infertile mother.
Do you support that?
Oh wow $1000. That is enough for someone to get on their feet.....
You do seem to be quite happy with this cognitive dissonance.
"Not people who share our views, but people who think it is OK to kill people they disagree with"
And you disagree and want them shot by the government.
Some might do well to do a little reading on critical thinking and avoiding logical fallacies. Flawed logic invites flawed conclusions. I guess coffee must be bad too? After all, if we all consumed nothing but coffee we'd die right?
Considering the impact of high population on the planet, our quality of life, and potential for a viable/sustainable future for mankind, producing a few less babies may be a good thing. It might be more realistic to examine the consequences of the tendency of those least qualify/prepared to produce the most children.
Diversity in diet, in the genes of parents, and in the makeup of our population in general is usually a good thing. Would you prefer that everyone was just like you?
I question stories like the one here. Plant a few extremists, or report on some that aren't there, to discredit or discourage peaceful citizens with legitimate concerns from speaking.
Considering that harming scientists wouldn't get rid of nuclear power in developed nations, these reports of harming them to do so seem questionable. Reports of people from one country killing scientists working on something supporting weapons as well as power in another (you can guess the names of the players) seems more believable. Twisting that to discredit people concerned about the environment sounds like propaganda to me.
In the U.S. it is illegal for the government to use propaganda on its own citizens. Hopefully that is NOT happening here. Shilling by corporations shouldn't be allowed, at least not without full disclosure, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
Seriously, a bunch of f*cking ignorant Luddites wanting to burn down anything they don't understand, bringing pitchforks and torches to the observatory because someone told them the world is round and not flat.
Born to every generation is a group of asshats that refuse to be educated and want to force their way of life on everyone else.
What is their mailing address?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Mass infertility in the human species is a program already underway. If you listen to the Agenda 21 conspiracies, anyway. It's being done covertly under vaccination programs for diseases endemic to an area. In North America it will likely be part of the flu vaccination programs.
I'd like to flesh this out a little bit. What constitutes "religious and other craziness" in the context of polygamy? Does this mean that you can be polygamous as long as you are atheist?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Damn 1%ers need to wed their fair share!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
True that a prevalent trait is not necessarily beneficial outside of the conditions that led natural selection to favor it. You muddied the salient fact about sickle cell, as it is very helpful to survival to have one copy (which is of course far more prevalent) in an area of endemic malaria. Sickle cell is decidedly not helpful outside of malaria-prone areas, however, climate change is expanding the distribution of malaria-hosting mosquitos farther into temperate regions, so there will be more fun for all of us.
Something being common does not necessary show that something is beneficial for survival. Look at e.g.: Sickle-cell disease(SCD). Very common in Sub-Saharan Africa, but not helpful for survival. SCD happens in individuals with two copies of the gene, while one copy of the gene makes individuals more resistant to malaria.
Are you claiming that being resistant to malaria is not beneficial for survival?
Just because some homosexuals were born that way doesn't mean they all are. Case in point: "bicurious".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
When I was growing up eco was short for economical, not ecological.
I thought carrying a single sickle-cell gene was beneficial. Resistance to malaria or suchlike? Anyway, gay people have kids all the time. Just because you don't care to copulate with the opposite sex, doesn't mean the drive to procreate isn't there.
...Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities....
I'm not sure that's a really good argument, are you sure the excess boy situation wouldn't be any better/worse than what exists china and india today? (although I'm joking, I'm only 1/2 joking)...
Perhaps what you should be saying is that polygamy and polyandry are just not normal so they should be tossed in with other things that people might find offensive to make your point.
While we're talking about societal disruptions, maybe we should toss in interracial dating, out-of-wedlock births, single parents, and arab spring?
They'd still be institutionalized, however...
That's the "comic-book" loner anarchist. True anarchists don't love science, nor do they hate science.
True anarchist are simply against the idea of the "state" because the "state" is in the way of people forming voluntary association with others. Take for example Jesus Christ. To some he was the prototypical anarchist: small groups of proto-christians voluntarily associating and making their way in life w/o the artifice of the state and the coercive way the leaders tax the citizenry and enlist their services in wars. If you didn't like his teachings, you were free to ignore it, but you didn't have to emigrate from a state to achieve that end (of course some may argue about what his teachings have morphed into, but I digress).
So contrary to worrying about making people less reliant on each other, it is all about free association (not unassociation with each other)...
On that whole "hippie" thing well, there might be some thing to that, but under the "true" definition of an anarchist, you might have to concede that members of the KKK are anarchists as well and they are probably not what you think about when you conjour up the word "hippie"...
Yep, this is why I think it's hilarious when women think most men want polygamy and consider the practice bad for women and good for men.
Thank your lucky stars that polygamy is illegal in most places, guys, or all the women would be married to the richest guy in town. The rich lifestyle of the husbands cheating rampantly and the wives looking the other way is just the closest they can legally get to rich guys keeping harems.
Maybe it's backwards to say that I like that a form of consensual adult relationship is illegal, but don't kid yourself, it's good for all us dudes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes, and my neighbor calls himself "The Spawn of Satan," so it must be true!
Well who says homosexuality is genetic? You're assuming that, and there's no evidence that this is the case AFAIK.
There are some theories that homosexuals would be advantageous to a society as surrogate caregivers though, which may explain why it hasn't been "corrected" by the evolutionary process, if that's possible.
I wonder what homosexuality rates are like in creatures that share zero child-rearing responsibility, vs. intelligent creatures that form societies and do share responsibility...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes, and my neighbor calls himself "The Spawn of Satan," so it must be true!
Sounds like the brother of one of my neighbors.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
With that in mind, I'd say it's likely that homosexuals in the past might have "married straight" and had children for purely practical/utilitarian purposes (maybe even a gay guy and a lesbian having kids together).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Or for Barack Obama, until we find out who he's speaking of when he refers to "my sons". As he did recently in Des Moines, and in Redwood City, California.
Does he have another wife somewhere, besides Michelle, or a concubine?
Maybe I was not clear enough about this. Yes, having one copy of the gene is very helpful, but will not cause full SCD. Two copies of the gene will cause SCD. You can not have people with one copy of the gene without having a smaller number of people that have two copies of the gene.
Jan
No, but for resistant to malaria one copy of the gene is enough, which will not cause full SCD. However single gene carriers mating with other single gene carries results in a 25% chance of double SCD gene offspring, 50% with a single gene and malaria resistance and 25% chance of offspring without a single SCD gene. So SCD gene will be beneficial to a group if malaria is large enough threat for survival, so that limited resistance for 75% offsets the dead's caused by full SCD for 25% of the children.
Jan
Exactly a single gene is beneficial, two of them are not. But you can not have people with one of the them, without also having people with two sickle-cell genes.
Anyway, gay people have kids all the time. Just because you don't care to copulate with the opposite sex, doesn't mean the drive to procreate isn't there.
Sure, but they sure get a smaller number of kids than heterosexuals without modern contraception. And remember that not too long ago people were often having 8 children or so but the population still stayed almost stable. So for survival people need to have a lot of kids because only a small subset of them was actually living long enough to get own children.
Jan
Could such groups be approached, by force if necessary, by the protesters, their face masks removed, their faces photographed and published, and then their identities crowdsourced?
Do it a couple times and the police runs out of willing unknown provocateurs.
Why do nerds seem split like 50-50 between being freethinkers/anarcho-types and technophilic fascists?
Is my percentage wrong? What accounts for this? EXPLAIN
AIDS isn't a downside?
The problem isn't homosexuality, it's promiscuity.
Mass infertility in the human species is a program already underway. If you listen to the Agenda 21 conspiracies, anyway
One of the many reasons why you shouldn't listen to the Agenda 21 conspiracies, or any other super-conspiracy peddler, for that matter.
And that's why not everyone is homosexual. There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual. That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality, so the truth is likely the exact opposite of what you said.
It doesn't mean there's a benefit, it just means the negatives aren't enough to have any meaningful impact.
That changes a lot if a species is rarer or has more competition for territory (like mammalian or avian predators).
An animal from such a group in the wild that doesn't reproduce is called a "black hole" in the ecosystem -- it consumes resources but doesn't produce (ie, offspring).
In nature, homosexuality isn't a problem for successful species that don't suffer if individuals don't breed. Saying that homosexuality is a "survival risk" for humans is laughable on the face of it, humanity has the exact opposite problem than underpopulation.
Once we have a fully functioning nanotechnology, we'll change their minds about it by literally changing their minds.
Don't worry, that's just a scary-ass joke.
Yeah, the possibilities are a bit scary to people who think the technology will be used that way, rather than having defensive nanotechnology open-sourced. BTW, the term "Open Source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source was originated by Christine Peterson of the Foresight institute http://foresight.org/ which is a big proponent of nanotechnology.
-- Terry
IN the US we don't have much left wing terrorism to speak of, the actions of some Earth First!-ers excepted.
But in Europe actually, you have it on both sides of the political spectrum. Sorry but killing people is a form of fascism. If you want to make your point to your fellow citizens then you need to restrict yourself to civilized means that are available to you. This is effective.
Is nanotechnology really threatening civilization the way, say, global warming is? Is nuclear power threatening civilization? I don't see it. What's more I see in the EU and now Japan that process of engaging civil society has resulted in the turning back of nuclear power in favor of other alternative energy sources.
So what's your point? Your point is you're violent and you're looking for someone to act out that violence against. Just like the right wing in this country with their abortion clinic bombings. It's disgusting and it puts you squarely outside of civilization, that thing you think you are protecting.
Some people just can't get used to the fact that society does not accord them maximum unilateral freedom to do what they want. Libertarians in this country have this bend. They accept no compromises in order to have a functioning society, they're always harkening after some mythical freedom they think they've lost by submitting to the compromises society requires of all its citizens.
I can't stand those people, on the left or on the right.
It's good for beta "dudes", not necessarily alpha dudes. Also, what makes you think that the wives aren't cheating as well (though studies I've seen do indicate that women cheat less than men, the number is still significant)?
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
And syphilis wasn't a downside to heterosexual sex in the 19th century?
Fucking moron. Show your face, anonymous coward.
So what does that have to do with the tea in China? jealous because they have more choices than you? Who gives a fuck! Stay out of everyone's bedroom and quit getting your damned panties in a wad because someone is getting laid. I have been hit on by men before, it takes less than 20 seconds to say "Thanks for the compliment but I don't play for that team" and that is that.
In the end ALL arguments against gays comes down to bible thumping bigots trying to force their ancient crap onto other people. Frankly I don't give a wet fart what some 1800 year dead goat herder wrote on a sheep's ass about some 2000+ year dead guy, okay? I can show you texts just as damned old that says I should slaughter those that don't believe in Ra, now where is MY religious freedom? How come I can't sacrifice unbelievers? Because its ALL bullshit, ancient superstitions that have become a way of easily manipulating the poor. As Marx put it "religion is the opiate of the masses" and doing that much has obviously made them stupid. Leave everyone alone and mind your own damned business, how about that?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The real problem is what happens to society when large numbers of men are deprived of the chance for families and paternity.
I think this is known in the sociological literature as "tick.. tick... tick.. BOOM!!!!"
Perhaps it's polygamy *specifically* mixed with Islam? It makes logical sense that there would be a lot of horny, frustrated young men unable to get wives in a polygamous society. I could see a turn to religion (and the eventual 99 virgins) as a consequence of that.
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
Bad example: sickle cell gene holders have slightly altered blood cell proteins that convey limited resistance to malaria.
"Sickle-cell disease(SCD). Very common in Sub-Saharan Africa, but not helpful for survival."
You do know that that genetic trait offers tolerance against malaria, don't you?
"This is also problematic reasoning. There are also significant numbers of species(ants,...) where most individuals are infertile. But that sure does not mean that mass infertility would be beneficial for humans, too."
This is problematic reading comprehension. The parent never said that mass homosexuality would be beneficial to humans.
Just because some homosexuals are bicurious that way doesn't mean they all are. Funny, isn't it?
Thanks for taking my one-line observation and turning it into a worthless, spittle-laced rant that has nothing to do with my point.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There's almost always going to be excess boys, no matter what, simply because any given child is more likely to be a boy than a girl. Older societies (and some modern ones) probably kept this problem under control with frequent wars, to keep the male population in check.
An animal from such a group in the wild that doesn't reproduce is called a "black hole" in the ecosystem -- it consumes resources but doesn't produce (ie, offspring).
Wrong. There's plenty of animals that don't reproduce yet aren't "black holes": ants come to mind immediately. Most of them are infertile, yet they're useful for the colony as worker drones. Homosexuals in a social species (like humans) may serve some similar purpose beneficial to the species as a whole. Also, at least in humans, homosexuals aren't unable to reproduce, they just usually don't. Sometimes they do, however (which is giving conservatives all kinds of fits, because they don't want kids raised in homosexual families), either artificially, or just by having heterosexual intercourse for the express purpose of reproduction. Being homosexual doesn't mean a woman can't get pregnant, but it can mean she doesn't have as many children as a women who enjoys heterosexual sex, since the homosexual woman can generally only get pregnant when she really wants to get pregnant, and is willing to do something she doesn't enjoy that much to become that way, whereas for heterosexuals, the #1 reason for having children is "Whoops!".
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham 1858:06
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
You said and I quote "Just because some homosexuals were born that way doesn't mean they all are. Case in point: "bicurious". and I still respond...who the fuck cares? Why do YOU care what THEY are doing? How is it ANY of your business? What does it matter to YOU if some were born that way and some weren't?
Anyone that thinks sex is a B&W issue is simply retarded, there are as many places in the spectrum between straight and gay as there are variations in temp but in the end as long as its consenting adults who cares? And who says some can't be born bi? maybe they are simply wired that way, just as I'm as straight as a laser sight?
In the end I have yet to see ANY argument against someone having the right to be straight or gay or bi that didn't come down to religion, and since we are supposed to be intelligent thinking beings wouldn't it be better to base things on facts and not some sky bully that is supposed to come down and spank us if we don't jump through his hoops? if the sky bully exists then let HIM take care of it, I seriously doubt a Deity would need Cleetus to bash the queers for him.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Politics is stagnated because idiots love to apply terms they don't understand to cover up their terrorism.
Killing scientists because they tested on animals doesn't mean you're a socialist. Stop listening to PETA.
Killing scientists because of ecology concerns doesn't mean you're an anarchist. Stop listening to pop punk.
Ruining society because you don't understand economics doesn't mean you're an anarchist. Stop listening to Ron Paul.
Bombing non Muslims and claiming women should be subservient to men doesn't mean you're a Muslim. In fact, Islam claims piety is both genders being respectful to each other. Stop listening to your fascist leaders.
It's because of these people who hijack terms that politics stagnated and is essentially a black box. But whatever, go watch American Idol.
I'd humbly suggest that it is the crushing poverty (which also leads to not getting a wife) of 40% of the population that leads to terrorism, not how many vaginas the top 1% are collecting.
How can the parent post possibly be construed as
offending Slashdot's comment guidelines?
that would certainly explain the Oklahoma bombing...
+1 funny
yes because all women only care about money... btw my wife makes WAYYYY more than me.
People feel totally apathetic and powerless to affect anything corporations or the government do, so when those entities create technology that people think is dangerous, they're going to turn to unconventional methods. It's the only way they feel they have a voice, like it or not, right or wrong. Denying that is akin to saying the 'terrorists' hate us for our freedoms. Simplistic nonsense that purposefully ignores the root of the problem. Give people a stake and a voice in society and "eco-terrorism" and other forms of violent protest will abate.
Except Saudi Arabia doesn't suffer from "crushing poverty" and yet 19 of the 21 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. And many of them had nice, middle class backgrounds. So that does seem to skewer your point a bit. If poverty were the cause, then we'd be seeing a TON of sub-Saharan African terrorists or Bengali terrorists, but alas, there are few to none.
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
http://strangerinthisdunya.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/poverty-in-saudi-arabia/
Of course there is *some* poverty in Saudi Arabia (especially among the repressed Shite minority). There is *some* poverty everywhere, even in the US. But only Islamic countries produce terrorists who want to blow themselves up along with a bunch of other people. Why is that? The answer isn't poverty. The answer is: because Islam is a violent religion. It always has been and, maybe, it always will be. It was FOUNDED on violence.
Compare this to the Christian religion, whose main prophet is Jesus Christ, a total man of peace if there ever was one. True Christianity is an extremely peaceful religion (love your enemy, turn the other cheek, beat swords into plowshares, lion lays down with the lamb, etc, etc). Now, of course, Christianity has been twisted and misused for the purposes of Man for almost as long as it's been around, but this is not the fault of the religion, this is the fault of men who use it for their own purposes.
Islam, however, is a different ball of wax, because you can't separate the religion from its inherent violence. It's a tribal religion, just like Judaism is a tribal religion for the Jewish people and it is incapable of coexisting with other religions. Look all around the world and everywhere Islam borders other religions, there is conflict. Why? Because in its foundation Islam is intolerant of people believing anything other than that Allah is the one and true god. That's why Islamic lands are known as Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and all non-Islamic lands are known as Dar al-Harb (House of War).
Unless Islam experiences a Reformation like the Christian religion did, where religion was completely severed from earthly power and governance (and thus religious authority lost the power to kill), then there will never be peace between Islam and the rest of the world. It will be perpetual conflict until one or the other destroys their opponent.
Sure, sure.
But the issue raised was if polygamy was responsible for terrorism, and I think the answer to that is no, since other areas have had polygamy without especially high levels of violence.