You mean when they do not keep their promises. And no, it is not better than some arbitrary person in power. It's not so much the people within the system I'm against, it's the system itself. I'm sure this will sound foreign and absurd to you but I believe the only way to orient a society without exploitation and despotism is to actively stamp out dominance and competition. The thoughts of a lazy, self-serving cynic probably don't mean much to you so I'm willing to agree to disagree.
You may have taken my post too seriously, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't have bothered replying except that someone might mistake the words you put in my mouth for my own.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/291/3/R768
Here's a study among others that show the ability of the environment to override genetic predispositions. I won't dispute the importance of genetics in governing behaviour, but given the range of cultural norms experienced by humans in time frames far too short to be explained by genetics I think it's clear that the environment is the overriding factor. What I will dispute is your claim of an on-or-off state, where a person either can or cannot be a rocket surgeon regardless of their environment.
Perhaps but according to this essay it's also completely appropriate. And it makes sense if you consider all information serial. The car could never have been invented without the wheel.
>> What gets me is that they even claim their imperialist ambition to capture Taiwan is somehow tied to stability.
That's the idea in the Middle East, right? Empires always make you want the war in your heart with nationalism/racism and in your mind with mitigating platitudes.
Well it's not like the UK doesn't have all the social problems every other country in the world has. All political systems are in the same framework, they all fail.
In general:
If a problem has no profitable solution then it will not be solved.
If a problem has a profitable patch-like solution (for example, selling bottled water from clean water sources to places where there are none) then a reinforcement is set up to preserve the problem.
In either case, the profitability and establishment of existing institutions tends to suppress new ideas for progress.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean when they do not keep their promises. And no, it is not better than some arbitrary person in power. It's not so much the people within the system I'm against, it's the system itself. I'm sure this will sound foreign and absurd to you but I believe the only way to orient a society without exploitation and despotism is to actively stamp out dominance and competition. The thoughts of a lazy, self-serving cynic probably don't mean much to you so I'm willing to agree to disagree.
You think you're making the world a better place by putting a person into power based on what he promises to do? Naivety, thy name is spun.
Even if politicians were honest they don't know anything about solving problems.
You may have taken my post too seriously, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't have bothered replying except that someone might mistake the words you put in my mouth for my own.
http://www.geraldscarfe.com/gallery_politics/joinatob_lg.jpg
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/291/3/R768 Here's a study among others that show the ability of the environment to override genetic predispositions. I won't dispute the importance of genetics in governing behaviour, but given the range of cultural norms experienced by humans in time frames far too short to be explained by genetics I think it's clear that the environment is the overriding factor. What I will dispute is your claim of an on-or-off state, where a person either can or cannot be a rocket surgeon regardless of their environment.
What innate capacity to be a rocket surgeon? The rocket surgeon gene?
That doesn't refute the OP's point. Are you saying someone who studied rocket surgery their entire life wouldn't be a competent rocket surgeon?
Are you kidding? Technology is the only thing that has ever improved our lives.
I hear this argument a lot, that people have to restart their browsers once a day. Why is that a problem?
What version of money would this be that you cannot buy power with?
Hindsight is 20/20. If it's a low hanging fruit it's one that hasn't been reached yet.
Perhaps but according to this essay it's also completely appropriate. And it makes sense if you consider all information serial. The car could never have been invented without the wheel.
>> What gets me is that they even claim their imperialist ambition to capture Taiwan is somehow tied to stability. That's the idea in the Middle East, right? Empires always make you want the war in your heart with nationalism/racism and in your mind with mitigating platitudes.
OK, but what was gained in that move? Is society any better for it?
I didn't say keep doing the same thing, I said that to change American politics to British politics would be to keep doing the same thing.
"There is no short cut to truth, no way to gain a knowledge of the universe except through the gateway of scientific method" - Karl Pearson
Well it's not like the UK doesn't have all the social problems every other country in the world has. All political systems are in the same framework, they all fail.
In general: If a problem has no profitable solution then it will not be solved. If a problem has a profitable patch-like solution (for example, selling bottled water from clean water sources to places where there are none) then a reinforcement is set up to preserve the problem. In either case, the profitability and establishment of existing institutions tends to suppress new ideas for progress.