Except - in the developed world at least - there just aren't many evolutionary pressures any more. Modern medicine can help carriers of almost any gene survive to procreate, and with in vitro fertilisation and suchlike, you don't even need to necessarily be attractive to pass them on. Evolution is an adaptive mechanism, not some endless process churning out more and more advanced forms of life....
Accidental deaths and homicides account for around 45% of deaths before child bearing age. Unless we're adapting to being stab-resistant, or able to survive collision at 100km/hr, we're not really moving anywhere.
Wow yeah and that's why all peacocks are dull and brown, right?
Look, there's more kinds of selection than reproduction by those who live to a certain age. Things like with whom you have children and how many you have and the way you raise them all natural selection.
Yep, it is absolutely clear that we are currently selecting for a lack of interest in education. The more educated you get, the less kids you have.
No, you misunderstood me. The same thing couldn't be said for gasoline, because there the potential energy is stored chemically rather than gravitationally.
For my previous example, picture a car with a huge tank of water on top, allowing that water to flow down through a turbine in order to power it. You could do that with gasoline, but the gasoline stores far more energy per gallon chemically, so that's why we don't use it that way.
Yes, unfortunately 'the universe' is commonly conflated with 'the multiverse'. The reason is historical: we used to think everything our telescopes could see was it, but now theory suggests there is more. But the term has stuck as the definition of all the galaxies resulting from the big bang, and there IS NO SUBSTITUTE TERM IN COMMON USAGE for that collection.
So universe/multiverse is what we're stuck with for now.
You could maximize the number who were free by massive taxation of the wealthy. Our current system favors the elite, heavily. Skewing it to favor the ordinary would make most people more free, and need not make anyone less free (once you have enough to be free as we've defined it, you can tax at 100% without making them less free).
My point is that our current society is structured to almost minimize the number of people who are truly free, and could be structured to maximize that number instead.
That's what makes both slave and productive member of society useless labels. It's obviously actually a range, with some people closer to true freedom, and some closer to abject bondage. Even among people who are actually owned by other people, the level of freedom varies. For most people in our society, while they technically have the freedom to walk away from their job at any time, they can't exercise that freedom without significant sacrifices (like decent food, shelter) for their families. The closer you are to being unable to make ends meet, the less leverage you have to get a fair wage for your work, the closer that work comes to being enslavement.
I mean because facebook has successfully positioned themselves to kill google's core business in the long run. Who needs a search based on web page linking when you can get to the site your friends use?
Our society will actually provide food stamps, and shelter for the desperate, so it's not quite the same situation. Also, force vs lack of access to necessities is somewhat different as well.
But yes, most people are slaves of some kind in our society.
Imprisonment is failure of the system by definition. It says we couldn't find any way to engage these people productively. That's our failure, not theirs, particularly since we also supply the education.
That's the opposite of volunteering. Like if I hold a gun to your head, and say 'work or I'll kill you'... if you volunteer that's not a choice. Neither is it a choice if I offer to torture you or let you 'volunteer' to work. Neither is it a choice if I offer to put you in a box for the day, or work.
No, a choice would be: come out to the open road. There you can work, or not.
The USA has more prisoners and more forced labor. Granted, most of that is not happening in Alaska, but our prisoner fatality rates are still pretty competitive.
While it is factual that those things occurred in that order, that was a minor economic cost for the USSR, the implication that it was causal is quite the stretch. The arms race was a massive cost.
Our universe is doomed. Unless we come to an understanding of how to escape to the multiverse outside, humanity will end. If you believe in the continuation of our species, there is really no expense that can't be justified in understanding and attempting to escape our current situation.
And from a more practical point of view, a better understanding of the mechanics of the universe might lead to cheaper ways to do fusion, which would unlock our economies from the chains of expensive fuels.
A shocking revelation to be sure. I mean, surely no one has thought that Google makes billions of dollars off free services, and not just by sprinkling magical fairy dust on them.
That has never happened. Even Google and Facebook took years to get big. Bigger companies could have sued them into the ground if they had their eyes open. Facebook rising to power without Google making a peep was the biggest clue to get out of Google stock ever.
It's kind of sad, but the evidence is getting stronger and stronger that capitalism is worse for the average person than communism, in spite of the failure of the USSR (which likely would not have occurred if not for the arms race pressure with the USA).
They are not, I repeat NOT, aliens from another planet bent on making us spend more time sitting at a computer getting fattier and tastier. Does their name not make that clear?
Slashdot Mirror
And don't forget that every option it competes with has even larger subsidies.
Wow yeah and that's why all peacocks are dull and brown, right?
Look, there's more kinds of selection than reproduction by those who live to a certain age. Things like with whom you have children and how many you have and the way you raise them all natural selection.
Yep, it is absolutely clear that we are currently selecting for a lack of interest in education. The more educated you get, the less kids you have.
No, you misunderstood me. The same thing couldn't be said for gasoline, because there the potential energy is stored chemically rather than gravitationally.
For my previous example, picture a car with a huge tank of water on top, allowing that water to flow down through a turbine in order to power it. You could do that with gasoline, but the gasoline stores far more energy per gallon chemically, so that's why we don't use it that way.
Energy stored as the potential energy against gravity of large volumes of water is not the most convenient of automotive fuels.
But by that same logic, you shouldn't trust page rank either. At best you should start on the last page of Google results and work your way back?
Whoever moderated this troll needs some lessons in thermodynamics.
Yes, unfortunately 'the universe' is commonly conflated with 'the multiverse'. The reason is historical: we used to think everything our telescopes could see was it, but now theory suggests there is more. But the term has stuck as the definition of all the galaxies resulting from the big bang, and there IS NO SUBSTITUTE TERM IN COMMON USAGE for that collection.
So universe/multiverse is what we're stuck with for now.
You could maximize the number who were free by massive taxation of the wealthy. Our current system favors the elite, heavily. Skewing it to favor the ordinary would make most people more free, and need not make anyone less free (once you have enough to be free as we've defined it, you can tax at 100% without making them less free).
My point is that our current society is structured to almost minimize the number of people who are truly free, and could be structured to maximize that number instead.
That's what makes both slave and productive member of society useless labels. It's obviously actually a range, with some people closer to true freedom, and some closer to abject bondage. Even among people who are actually owned by other people, the level of freedom varies. For most people in our society, while they technically have the freedom to walk away from their job at any time, they can't exercise that freedom without significant sacrifices (like decent food, shelter) for their families. The closer you are to being unable to make ends meet, the less leverage you have to get a fair wage for your work, the closer that work comes to being enslavement.
I mean because facebook has successfully positioned themselves to kill google's core business in the long run. Who needs a search based on web page linking when you can get to the site your friends use?
Our society will actually provide food stamps, and shelter for the desperate, so it's not quite the same situation. Also, force vs lack of access to necessities is somewhat different as well.
But yes, most people are slaves of some kind in our society.
That was two years too late.
Imprisonment is failure of the system by definition. It says we couldn't find any way to engage these people productively. That's our failure, not theirs, particularly since we also supply the education.
That's the opposite of volunteering. Like if I hold a gun to your head, and say 'work or I'll kill you' ... if you volunteer that's not a choice. Neither is it a choice if I offer to torture you or let you 'volunteer' to work. Neither is it a choice if I offer to put you in a box for the day, or work.
No, a choice would be: come out to the open road. There you can work, or not.
That differs from the communist situation how?
You think those guys on the side of the road with the orange jumpsuits have a choice about what they're doing? Or the ones making license plates, etc?
Yes, capitalism has had no obvious failures of policy to compete.
The USA has more prisoners and more forced labor. Granted, most of that is not happening in Alaska, but our prisoner fatality rates are still pretty competitive.
While it is factual that those things occurred in that order, that was a minor economic cost for the USSR, the implication that it was causal is quite the stretch. The arms race was a massive cost.
Our universe is doomed. Unless we come to an understanding of how to escape to the multiverse outside, humanity will end. If you believe in the continuation of our species, there is really no expense that can't be justified in understanding and attempting to escape our current situation.
And from a more practical point of view, a better understanding of the mechanics of the universe might lead to cheaper ways to do fusion, which would unlock our economies from the chains of expensive fuels.
A shocking revelation to be sure. I mean, surely no one has thought that Google makes billions of dollars off free services, and not just by sprinkling magical fairy dust on them.
That has never happened. Even Google and Facebook took years to get big. Bigger companies could have sued them into the ground if they had their eyes open. Facebook rising to power without Google making a peep was the biggest clue to get out of Google stock ever.
It's kind of sad, but the evidence is getting stronger and stronger that capitalism is worse for the average person than communism, in spite of the failure of the USSR (which likely would not have occurred if not for the arms race pressure with the USA).
They are not, I repeat NOT, aliens from another planet bent on making us spend more time sitting at a computer getting fattier and tastier. Does their name not make that clear?