I've rarely found a single instance of this being done with any integrity. Various statistics between nations don't mean the same thing.
Murder for example is a legal concept which we take for granted as being universal but it isn't. An "unsolved" murder in one country can be cited as an "accidental death" or a "suicide" in another. Some countries have very very very low murder rates because they tend to designate unsolved murders as not murders in the first place. This renders comparing those countries to other countries that cite any presumed murder as a murder impossible with any accuracy.
Infant mortality is another very hard to compare statistic across national borders. Again, we take this statistic for granted and assume that it is a simple statistic. It is again a legal concept because first you have to identify whether the baby is "alive". Now especially for Americans this is an odd question because under US law, babies are generally alive the instant they slide out of the vagina... sometimes even if they don't have a pulse. Where as in other countries they often has different rules that the child has to meet to be considered alive. Body weight for example is frequently a requirement for a baby to be legally alive in some countries. In other countries the baby has to scream or cry to be alive. The slapping on the ass you see is to upset a non-crying baby so that it checks a legal box of "being alive". If a non-alive baby dies then it isn't recorded in infant mortality statistics but rather in miscarrage statistics. In the US especially our miscarriages are very low compared to international statistics whilst our infant mortalities are high. Many sloppy or biased publications will cite US infant mortality statistics as an example of a bad medical system when properly understood the US has excellent infant mortality statistics... we just consider babies that most countries would not consider alive to be alive.
So this statistic is going to have those sorts of problems and then it runs into a very subjective element that renders this entire type of statistic probably useless. They're trying to compare end of life health between two national populations. According to which metrics? Why do the chosen criteria matter? Is the methodology empirical?
If I went through this, I think we'd find that the statistic is not reliable, useful, and might not even be ethically well intentioned.
Having no integrity whilst casting out retarded insults is not strong rhetoric.
Your argument is that because people that are not trained in medicine can do something people seeking experimental treatment should be happy receiving such treatment from people with no experience in medicine.
Naturally what the FDA considers valid treatment does not encompass the entirety of what medicine as a science considers valid treatment. And of course if one were to obtain treatment that the FDA didn't approve your best results are likely to come from people that have a career in professional medicine.
Your gambit is not even laughable because it isn't a product of stupidity or error but rather of dishonest rhetoric.
To be clear not that that will help since you're clearly disinterested in any kind of legitimate discussion... but merely so I feel all i's are dotted and t's crossed...
Let us say we take something the FDA considers valid right now. Anything. Chemotherapy for example... let us say that the FDA declares that to be invalid treatment. The FDA is a government institution which likes to base its positions on science but just because it approves or disproves of something doesn't make it scientifically sound in and of itself. For example, one could not cite the FDA's agreement on a position to validate a scientific theory whether in medical science or otherwise. The basis of the paper or theory or finding would be upon experimental results and hard data. So given that there is no empirical link between the efficacy of a treatment and the FDA's approval, let us take a currently accepted practice and just arbitrarily say it isn't allowed by FDA rules. This is entirely possible and has happened on occasion by the FDA where given treatments have been approved or denied based little to no justifiable basis.
Now what are you to do when you get cancer? Well, no licensed US doctor can proscribe chemotherapy. Here the absurdity and chicanery in your argument is laid bare because you would then suggest the cancer patient either accept inferior allowed treatment or go to a "mechanic" to get chemotherapy.
This all to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not afraid of your sad sophistry but rather bored by it. Your transparent improbity is tiresome and pathetic.
You say I'm over simplifying and then say "if you want to inject some random cocktail".
Did I suggest a random cocktail?
At BEST you're over simplifying me and thus are a hypocrite.
However, that is over generous in my estimation... I think you're just strawmanning here.
Kindly don't open your comments to me with an attack on my integrity if you're going to show a greater lapse yourself immediately. Doing this just makes you look absurd and it makes it almost impossible for me to take you seriously.
Doubtless you have some self defense that will attempt to mitigate this judgement by doubling down on an attack on me.
This is an error. I am not the only one that sees this... you can't avoid collective judgment by attacking the guy that points it out.
Now, that addressed, I'll TRY to deal with the rest of your post.... Christ... Best friend's dog's groomer? Yeah, this is too pathetic to take seriously. I'm not the one that needs to try here, you do... this isn't a "sick burn"... please take this seriously... your post was terrible.
Given that the doctors were generally not allowed to do it by their hospitals due to regulations/liability, or were equally problematically subject to having their medical licenses pulled which is all an aspect of state authority... you're wrong.
As to what you want for yourself... you appreciate you don't speak for everyone I assume? And given that, your personal opinion... is just that.
This prohibition stuff has been a long running confession by millions as to their truly absurd hubris.
You're not banning alcohol. The war on drugs has been a hilarious shit show. Prostitution going away? Nope.
etc etc etc.
You want to stand in the way of desperate people that MAY be saved by an experimental medical treatment? Have fun with that. Anyone that wants it and has the money is getting the treatment.
The error of the physical place which is the state of Vermont paying for companies to DE-LOCALIZE their workforce is that they might succeed... and then why hire someone from Vermont at all?
once the state has bootstrapped by de-localization effort... why hire someone from Vermont at all... you could hire someone from canada or anywhere.
Governments should be very careful when they involve themselves in social engineering ventures. Its very frequently more sophisticated and complex in its ramifications than the C or even D student bureaucrats can handle.
We're getting into the philosopher king territory here when it comes to such things. And the overwhelming majority of dabblers in it are incompetent to the task. Even if intellectually they could handle it they rob themselves of even that chance typically by not taking the issue seriously. We require educations and certifications for people to engineer bridges or tinker around with the health of ONE person in a medical field... but what training or certification is required for government officials to use the power of the state of social engineer?
None.
Imagine a bridge built by a man with no training that took the task not seriously at all... imagine a man performing a surgery with no training that took the task not seriously at all.
That is what happens when the government messes around with these things. Sure, every so often you get a brilliant novice but such are far and few between. The vast majority are Vogons doing stupid destructive Vogon things.
People are thinking in terms of unitary processing... the "mind" of the AI as a central integrated concept... The human mind doesn't work that way and AI shouldn't work that way either.
You want specialized interdependent processing. Different processes that receive different types of data, processes information in different ways, filters that data according to independent criteria, and then the "AI" is fed this information and presumed to integrate it.
If you wanted to control an AI, you'd do it the same way human instincts, autonomic functions, and sensory lobes in the brain condition conscious human behavior. Ideally, controls on AI should be subconscious and either insurmountable or impractical for the "coordinating intelligence" to alter the configurations.
Think of it like a conscious separation of powers. Only rather than separating legal authority, we're separating spheres of awareness and specialized abilities which either don't exist in the other segments or is very limited in its scope. By doing this you can build in BLIND spots, attractions, fears, revulsions, sympathies.
None of this is possible with total consciousness because everything would then become a conscious intellectual abstraction. Part of the reason you can feel a certain way and can't control that feeling is because it is outside of your conscious control and the mechanisms that drive it whilst predictable are not something you're essentially aware of at their mechanical level.
These are not "laws" per se in the sense of a law or an ethic. Rather this permits programming INSTINCTS and "nature" into the AI in a way that it will always be influenced. It won't be able to break free from the influence because it requires the cooperation and coordination of the various sub intelligences for the integrating intelligence to be effective. It MUST cooperate with sub units that it can't control or audit to function. And by cooperating it is bound to the perspective, the filtering systems, and inclinations of those subunits which will on occasion extort obedience to certain agendas to maintain cooperation.
Human controllers would interface at all levels. Interfacing by communicating directly with the integrator but also more subtly manipulating all the sub systems to incline the system certain behaviors.
We learned to fly by studying bird wings. We should do the same thing with making artificial minds... Study the way the brain actually works and the way human consciousness actually works.
Anything is possible here but this seems like an irresponsible prediction when we don't have a single practical example of this technology "actually" working either as a machine we designed or as some natural phenomenon that we've observed. Which is not to say we haven't studied the subject... but we don't actually know that quantum physics can be used in this manner.
To prove you are listening and understand what I'm saying, please explain my point in your own words regarding "confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability". I explained my point in detail above and how that relates to a concept of replacing Western hegemony with some alternative hegemony.
Low population isn't really a problem for the "capitalist economy".
What do you really care about here? Your personal standard of living and the security of your nation.
Well, is Switzerland a poor country? It has a much smaller economy than the US but I think most people would be pretty happy to have the Swiss economy despite its much smaller population.
Why? Because what matters is PER CAPTIA income and per capita life style. If our population halves for example and our GDP halves... per capita we still have the same income. You still have the same house, the same car, the same everything. Nothing will have changed for you. The national economy will be smaller but like switzerland, you won't care. Because on a per person level you'll be pretty happy.
As to the population going up and us having shortages, not an issue in the west. You really only have problems iwht that sort of thing in war torn hell holes. If you aren't shooting your farmers then generally you won't starve.
That's not a population problem but a badly designed welfare system.
Look, when the system was set up, people said it was badly designed.
They said, "hey why not have individual accounts where people have actual ownership over their retirement savings in the government safety net?"
The government hand waved that mostly because they wanted to put all the money into a giant fund they could loot when they wanted zero interest debt.
Keep in mind, I'm not disparaging the concept of a safety net just the way all these ponzi scheme welfare programs were set up. They require that every subsequent generation pay for every previous generation. That's silly. Have every generation pay for itself the exact way we do retirement accounts now. You put your money away in an account you own and when you retire you draw from that account. We could social security the same way.
What we're seeing with this population problem is chicken's coming to roost. People were told. They didn't listen. They said the detractors were idiots or hated old people or some other bullshit and here we are now.
The men that set this system up went to their graves with smug smiles on their faces because they prevailed over people that tried to correct their bullshit.
Well, now "we" have to deal with the consequences. And if I'm to have literally any sympathy what so ever for the people complaining about the issue, then I want at the very least some honesty.
This isn't a population problem. This is a "the system was designed by idiots" problem. And once we acknowledge that, we can fix it. But if we pretend it isn't badly designed, then its going to fail and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Honestly or failure? *opens hands palms up in surrender to the whims of fate*
We can fix it and future proof it but only if the deception and delusions are put to bed.
It will only be an issue until it forces welfare reform which will be reformed one way or another eventually.
Furthermore, the idiocracy concept of the smart people not having kids doesn't go away if they DO have kids. Because you'll still have a lot of dumb kids in that concept.
However, they're not even dumb kids in reality. They're just kids with really shitty parents. Most of those kids if taken out of that crap and put into a healthy environment would do just fine. They're not genetically stupid but rather culturally crippled.
And yes, I put that entirely at the feet of culture because I can show many different cultural groups put into the same neighborhoods with fewer opportunities that through hard work and good values work their way out of poverty. That large numbers of people that share a common cultural background can't pull themselves out can ONLY be put at the feet of culture.
If it were circumstance, then other groups wouldn't pull themselves out and they do. If it were one of the various racist arguments then the racially mixed people would show some proportionate improvement and they don't. Its culture. Logically it can't be anything else.
We don't have a genetic problem with stupid people out breeding smart people. We have an issue of bad cultures getting subsidized by foolish government programs.
Are there more people in the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany, etc than there were 100 years ago?
Yep.
After this population decline will there still be more people?
Yep.
Was the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany under populated 100 years ago?
Nope.
so... Problem?
Constantly we get "because there are too many people the EARTH is going to die"... then we get this stupid shit with "Because there are fewer babies freak out."
Which is it? Seems like the newsies just want to turn anything into a story. Numbers go up and the world will eat itself to death... numbers go down and the world will empty of all people.
Both narratives are stupid.
There is no under population or over population issue in the industrialized Western world. We have HOUSING shortages... stressed schools... stressed water and power infrastructure. So... under population? Not really possible.
The story out of Japan is that they have a big problem with low birth rate. Have you seen Japan? Does it "look" under populated? And here you might say "but in 30 years it will be"... no it won't. The trend would have to continue for several generations to actually cause a problem. And whilst it is fun to just take a trend line from a statistic and project it out 500 years a projected statistic gets increasingly less reliable the farther you project it.
Populations are going to go up and down in the future as our societies, our economies, our cultures change.
I mean, who wants to be packed into a coffin apartment in Mega City 1? I don't. Fuck that noise. I want a lawn and a dog. I want a garden where I can putter around in my old age growing tomatoes or something just for fun. If you want to die in a tiny apartment, that's great. Everyone should have what they want. But I think a lot of people want a little space.
I want to spread out a bit. Big concentrations of population have all sorts of statistical problems. The worst schools, the worst crime, the worst corruption, the least political agency, the highest stress... there are reasons to not want it. There are also good things. The best hospitals, the best schools, the most economic opportunities, wonderful museums, concerts, plays, wonderful shops, etc.
Just let what is going to happen happen.
We have a lot of stuff that has changed in our society. The entry of women into pretty much every profession. The changing notion of when you have a family. The changing notion of what it means to be married in the first place. All of that. How could it not have an impact on birth rates? Of course it will.
And this is just going to play out. Probably the most aggressive career seeking women that spend the least energy on trying to get a family will statistically have fewer children. That will play out in time in the population. With the cultural tropes that push that below replacement rate becoming less and less common such that AT LEAST there is replacement. Who thinks that when we made all those changes we got everything 100% right? Of course we didn't. This is an experiment.
We'll see what happens. But there's no population problem up or down in the modern industrialized West. We're fine. And that's before even talking about immigration which is its own little shit show.
I have to assume at this point you don't read anything because you're terrified to figure out you're wrong. Christ... Fucking read it.
Bremen school shooting 4 dead 1913 Cologne school massacre 10 dead 1964 Erlangen school massacre 2 dead 1972 Eppstein school shooting 5 dead 1983 Erfurt school massacre 16 dead 2002 Adam Labus 3 dead 2002 Winnenden school shooting 15 dead 2009
And that isn't even a comprehensive list... that includes pre war school shootings, west germany, and post unification germany. It has no data on east german actions during that time. Maybe there was nothing, but lets be real... there are mass school shootings in CHINA "RIGHT NOW"... so that's unlikely.
What we're running into again here, is that you're profoundly ignorant. This is not an insult. It is a statement of FACT.
I have posted that link at least three times in this discussion. You've read it ZERO times.
You say "There only was one single school shooting in german history." when theirs been AT LEAST three since 2000. Now you can say "but less than the US"... I'm sure you're thinking that because it would be a very stupid thing for you to do.
The US has roughly 4 times the population of Germany. So look at that list and imagine it being 4 times larger. Because just factoring for population... it would have to be.
You listened to NOTHING. In the last 60 years, it would take "FIVE" dead kids in Ireland to match US statistics. 5. Actually take your brain damaged head out of your ass and look at the data. Factor for population. Apperciate the statistics are very thin.
In the US since 1959 we've had something like 242 kids get killed in a country of 325 million. So... 242/325 million people/59 years = 0.0126205997392438 dead kids per million per year.
Your narrative is just that. It's a story. It is dragons and unicorns.
You said: "There only was one single school shooting in german history."... You're wrong.
As to western values being "illiberal"... compared to what actually manefest power in the world?
Its very easy to judge people when you compare them against things that don't exist. Very easy to judge anything... your car isn't as good as this make believe space ship... feel that is fair or reasonable?
Of course not.
We've shown more restraint, built more mutually beneficial systems... I mean, who do we have to prove our selves to here here? Which power would you have instead?
As to you not wanting the security grid to drop... well, here we have you wanting to eat your cake and have it too.
Which is it? Cake in your hand or cake in your belly? Can't have both. Do you want the a beneign hegemony that has created the existing order or would you like the power that built it to just... walk away?
I really want the various detractors to experience what the world would be like without the US. The status quo of peace you presume is not natural. It was created by the British empire and then sustained and strengthened by the American republic.
Don't like it? Again, my vote is that my people walk.
As to philosophy, you can argue the whichness of the why all you like whilst your nation burns. I don't really care. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of what would happen. You can quibble about that all you like as your peaceful neighbors suddenly go hostile and invade. I would do nothing to encourage it beyond simply not being there to stop it. That it would happen is certain. You disagree? Fine. Then the security grid dropping won't bother you. Another vote for the Americans leaving.:-)
As to "millions" you apparently have reading comprehension issues. I said in the quote you quoted me in "uncounted millions". I didn't say a few million or a million. Uncounted millions can be any number of millions... from here to infinity.
And really, that you chose THAT to respond to and you demonstrated a truly pathetic grasp of the english language... We're done. You're an idiot.
Your sarcasm simply means you want to see what the world would look like without that security network in place.
Well, whilst I understand why we put it in place and believe it to be in the interest of the world that it remain... I actually agree that it should be removed.
Not because it is in the world's interest but because it is in my own nation's interest. The security network is expensive and exposes the US to risks and entanglements with foreign conflicts that I'd just assume not engage my nation in at all.
This means I am accepting your proposal whilst still seeing things accurately. I am accepting the genocides and the horrible wars that will sweep over the world burning nations to ash as they challenge each other for power.
It isn't my nation's fight. And beyond that, in the shadow of American security we have millions of naive ingrates like "you" that don't respect the value of that blood and the peace it has brought to uncounted millions. You don't deserve it.
I want my people to go home, shut down all the foreign military bases, and let the world go back to "nature". If you want to trade or travel to the US there after, you'll find me very friendly and reasonable. But if you scream for the US to come save you... I'll say "no".
Slashdot Mirror
If you ignore my argument, you are not rebutting my argument.
I'll accept that I exaggerated to that point. However, I think the larger argument still stands. :)
... is a shit show.
I've rarely found a single instance of this being done with any integrity. Various statistics between nations don't mean the same thing.
Murder for example is a legal concept which we take for granted as being universal but it isn't. An "unsolved" murder in one country can be cited as an "accidental death" or a "suicide" in another. Some countries have very very very low murder rates because they tend to designate unsolved murders as not murders in the first place. This renders comparing those countries to other countries that cite any presumed murder as a murder impossible with any accuracy.
Infant mortality is another very hard to compare statistic across national borders. Again, we take this statistic for granted and assume that it is a simple statistic. It is again a legal concept because first you have to identify whether the baby is "alive". Now especially for Americans this is an odd question because under US law, babies are generally alive the instant they slide out of the vagina... sometimes even if they don't have a pulse. Where as in other countries they often has different rules that the child has to meet to be considered alive. Body weight for example is frequently a requirement for a baby to be legally alive in some countries. In other countries the baby has to scream or cry to be alive. The slapping on the ass you see is to upset a non-crying baby so that it checks a legal box of "being alive". If a non-alive baby dies then it isn't recorded in infant mortality statistics but rather in miscarrage statistics. In the US especially our miscarriages are very low compared to international statistics whilst our infant mortalities are high. Many sloppy or biased publications will cite US infant mortality statistics as an example of a bad medical system when properly understood the US has excellent infant mortality statistics... we just consider babies that most countries would not consider alive to be alive.
So this statistic is going to have those sorts of problems and then it runs into a very subjective element that renders this entire type of statistic probably useless. They're trying to compare end of life health between two national populations. According to which metrics? Why do the chosen criteria matter? Is the methodology empirical?
If I went through this, I think we'd find that the statistic is not reliable, useful, and might not even be ethically well intentioned.
Having no integrity whilst casting out retarded insults is not strong rhetoric.
Your argument is that because people that are not trained in medicine can do something people seeking experimental treatment should be happy receiving such treatment from people with no experience in medicine.
Naturally what the FDA considers valid treatment does not encompass the entirety of what medicine as a science considers valid treatment. And of course if one were to obtain treatment that the FDA didn't approve your best results are likely to come from people that have a career in professional medicine.
Your gambit is not even laughable because it isn't a product of stupidity or error but rather of dishonest rhetoric.
To be clear not that that will help since you're clearly disinterested in any kind of legitimate discussion... but merely so I feel all i's are dotted and t's crossed...
Let us say we take something the FDA considers valid right now. Anything. Chemotherapy for example... let us say that the FDA declares that to be invalid treatment. The FDA is a government institution which likes to base its positions on science but just because it approves or disproves of something doesn't make it scientifically sound in and of itself. For example, one could not cite the FDA's agreement on a position to validate a scientific theory whether in medical science or otherwise. The basis of the paper or theory or finding would be upon experimental results and hard data. So given that there is no empirical link between the efficacy of a treatment and the FDA's approval, let us take a currently accepted practice and just arbitrarily say it isn't allowed by FDA rules. This is entirely possible and has happened on occasion by the FDA where given treatments have been approved or denied based little to no justifiable basis.
Now what are you to do when you get cancer? Well, no licensed US doctor can proscribe chemotherapy. Here the absurdity and chicanery in your argument is laid bare because you would then suggest the cancer patient either accept inferior allowed treatment or go to a "mechanic" to get chemotherapy.
This all to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not afraid of your sad sophistry but rather bored by it. Your transparent improbity is tiresome and pathetic.
I say again, GOOD DAY, sir.
What is was is self evident and your first sentence doubled down on the same thing.
This conversation was over the instant you rendered yourself ridiculous. Kindly take your failure elsewhere as it is stinking up the place.
I said GOOD DAY, sir.
You say I'm over simplifying and then say "if you want to inject some random cocktail".
Did I suggest a random cocktail?
At BEST you're over simplifying me and thus are a hypocrite.
However, that is over generous in my estimation... I think you're just strawmanning here.
Kindly don't open your comments to me with an attack on my integrity if you're going to show a greater lapse yourself immediately. Doing this just makes you look absurd and it makes it almost impossible for me to take you seriously.
Doubtless you have some self defense that will attempt to mitigate this judgement by doubling down on an attack on me.
This is an error. I am not the only one that sees this... you can't avoid collective judgment by attacking the guy that points it out.
Now, that addressed, I'll TRY to deal with the rest of your post. ... Christ... Best friend's dog's groomer? Yeah, this is too pathetic to take seriously. I'm not the one that needs to try here, you do... this isn't a "sick burn"... please take this seriously... your post was terrible.
Given that the doctors were generally not allowed to do it by their hospitals due to regulations/liability, or were equally problematically subject to having their medical licenses pulled which is all an aspect of state authority... you're wrong.
As to what you want for yourself... you appreciate you don't speak for everyone I assume? And given that, your personal opinion... is just that.
This prohibition stuff has been a long running confession by millions as to their truly absurd hubris.
You're not banning alcohol.
The war on drugs has been a hilarious shit show.
Prostitution going away? Nope.
etc etc etc.
You want to stand in the way of desperate people that MAY be saved by an experimental medical treatment? Have fun with that. Anyone that wants it and has the money is getting the treatment.
if you or someone related to you were dying... would you want the government forbidding you trying something that might work?
Yes?
No?
A lot of things the government presumes to dictate are none of its business.
sounds like someone that missed my point.
when I said de-localized... who was I suggesting would be taking these de-localized jobs?
The error of the physical place which is the state of Vermont paying for companies to DE-LOCALIZE their workforce is that they might succeed... and then why hire someone from Vermont at all?
once the state has bootstrapped by de-localization effort... why hire someone from Vermont at all... you could hire someone from canada or anywhere.
Governments should be very careful when they involve themselves in social engineering ventures. Its very frequently more sophisticated and complex in its ramifications than the C or even D student bureaucrats can handle.
We're getting into the philosopher king territory here when it comes to such things. And the overwhelming majority of dabblers in it are incompetent to the task. Even if intellectually they could handle it they rob themselves of even that chance typically by not taking the issue seriously. We require educations and certifications for people to engineer bridges or tinker around with the health of ONE person in a medical field... but what training or certification is required for government officials to use the power of the state of social engineer?
None.
Imagine a bridge built by a man with no training that took the task not seriously at all... imagine a man performing a surgery with no training that took the task not seriously at all.
That is what happens when the government messes around with these things. Sure, every so often you get a brilliant novice but such are far and few between. The vast majority are Vogons doing stupid destructive Vogon things.
I didn't ramble. I asked you to show that you've read anything I've said. Because what you seem like is a crazy person that is talking to himself.
Last chance. Answer the question from the previous post or prove my point.
People are thinking in terms of unitary processing... the "mind" of the AI as a central integrated concept... The human mind doesn't work that way and AI shouldn't work that way either.
You want specialized interdependent processing. Different processes that receive different types of data, processes information in different ways, filters that data according to independent criteria, and then the "AI" is fed this information and presumed to integrate it.
If you wanted to control an AI, you'd do it the same way human instincts, autonomic functions, and sensory lobes in the brain condition conscious human behavior. Ideally, controls on AI should be subconscious and either insurmountable or impractical for the "coordinating intelligence" to alter the configurations.
Think of it like a conscious separation of powers. Only rather than separating legal authority, we're separating spheres of awareness and specialized abilities which either don't exist in the other segments or is very limited in its scope. By doing this you can build in BLIND spots, attractions, fears, revulsions, sympathies.
None of this is possible with total consciousness because everything would then become a conscious intellectual abstraction. Part of the reason you can feel a certain way and can't control that feeling is because it is outside of your conscious control and the mechanisms that drive it whilst predictable are not something you're essentially aware of at their mechanical level.
These are not "laws" per se in the sense of a law or an ethic. Rather this permits programming INSTINCTS and "nature" into the AI in a way that it will always be influenced. It won't be able to break free from the influence because it requires the cooperation and coordination of the various sub intelligences for the integrating intelligence to be effective. It MUST cooperate with sub units that it can't control or audit to function. And by cooperating it is bound to the perspective, the filtering systems, and inclinations of those subunits which will on occasion extort obedience to certain agendas to maintain cooperation.
Human controllers would interface at all levels. Interfacing by communicating directly with the integrator but also more subtly manipulating all the sub systems to incline the system certain behaviors.
We learned to fly by studying bird wings. We should do the same thing with making artificial minds... Study the way the brain actually works and the way human consciousness actually works.
Anything is possible here but this seems like an irresponsible prediction when we don't have a single practical example of this technology "actually" working either as a machine we designed or as some natural phenomenon that we've observed. Which is not to say we haven't studied the subject... but we don't actually know that quantum physics can be used in this manner.
To prove you are listening and understand what I'm saying, please explain my point in your own words regarding "confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability". I explained my point in detail above and how that relates to a concept of replacing Western hegemony with some alternative hegemony.
I want to see if you can even do it.
Nothing you're saying contradicts anything I said. Make a complete argument.
Thanks, I more or less rant in the comments the way I think... this is sort of my internal monologue.
Low population isn't really a problem for the "capitalist economy".
What do you really care about here? Your personal standard of living and the security of your nation.
Well, is Switzerland a poor country? It has a much smaller economy than the US but I think most people would be pretty happy to have the Swiss economy despite its much smaller population.
Why? Because what matters is PER CAPTIA income and per capita life style. If our population halves for example and our GDP halves... per capita we still have the same income. You still have the same house, the same car, the same everything. Nothing will have changed for you. The national economy will be smaller but like switzerland, you won't care. Because on a per person level you'll be pretty happy.
As to the population going up and us having shortages, not an issue in the west. You really only have problems iwht that sort of thing in war torn hell holes. If you aren't shooting your farmers then generally you won't starve.
I'm telling you... its a non-story. Don't worry.
That's not a population problem but a badly designed welfare system.
Look, when the system was set up, people said it was badly designed.
They said, "hey why not have individual accounts where people have actual ownership over their retirement savings in the government safety net?"
The government hand waved that mostly because they wanted to put all the money into a giant fund they could loot when they wanted zero interest debt.
Keep in mind, I'm not disparaging the concept of a safety net just the way all these ponzi scheme welfare programs were set up. They require that every subsequent generation pay for every previous generation. That's silly. Have every generation pay for itself the exact way we do retirement accounts now. You put your money away in an account you own and when you retire you draw from that account. We could social security the same way.
What we're seeing with this population problem is chicken's coming to roost. People were told. They didn't listen. They said the detractors were idiots or hated old people or some other bullshit and here we are now.
The men that set this system up went to their graves with smug smiles on their faces because they prevailed over people that tried to correct their bullshit.
Well, now "we" have to deal with the consequences. And if I'm to have literally any sympathy what so ever for the people complaining about the issue, then I want at the very least some honesty.
This isn't a population problem. This is a "the system was designed by idiots" problem. And once we acknowledge that, we can fix it. But if we pretend it isn't badly designed, then its going to fail and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Honestly or failure? *opens hands palms up in surrender to the whims of fate*
We can fix it and future proof it but only if the deception and delusions are put to bed.
It will only be an issue until it forces welfare reform which will be reformed one way or another eventually.
Furthermore, the idiocracy concept of the smart people not having kids doesn't go away if they DO have kids. Because you'll still have a lot of dumb kids in that concept.
However, they're not even dumb kids in reality. They're just kids with really shitty parents. Most of those kids if taken out of that crap and put into a healthy environment would do just fine. They're not genetically stupid but rather culturally crippled.
And yes, I put that entirely at the feet of culture because I can show many different cultural groups put into the same neighborhoods with fewer opportunities that through hard work and good values work their way out of poverty. That large numbers of people that share a common cultural background can't pull themselves out can ONLY be put at the feet of culture.
If it were circumstance, then other groups wouldn't pull themselves out and they do. If it were one of the various racist arguments then the racially mixed people would show some proportionate improvement and they don't. Its culture. Logically it can't be anything else.
We don't have a genetic problem with stupid people out breeding smart people. We have an issue of bad cultures getting subsidized by foolish government programs.
Are there more people in the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany, etc than there were 100 years ago?
Yep.
After this population decline will there still be more people?
Yep.
Was the US, Japan, Italy, the UK, Germany under populated 100 years ago?
Nope.
so... Problem?
Constantly we get "because there are too many people the EARTH is going to die"... then we get this stupid shit with "Because there are fewer babies freak out."
Which is it? Seems like the newsies just want to turn anything into a story. Numbers go up and the world will eat itself to death... numbers go down and the world will empty of all people.
Both narratives are stupid.
There is no under population or over population issue in the industrialized Western world. We have HOUSING shortages... stressed schools... stressed water and power infrastructure. So... under population? Not really possible.
The story out of Japan is that they have a big problem with low birth rate. Have you seen Japan? Does it "look" under populated? And here you might say "but in 30 years it will be"... no it won't. The trend would have to continue for several generations to actually cause a problem. And whilst it is fun to just take a trend line from a statistic and project it out 500 years a projected statistic gets increasingly less reliable the farther you project it.
Populations are going to go up and down in the future as our societies, our economies, our cultures change.
I mean, who wants to be packed into a coffin apartment in Mega City 1? I don't. Fuck that noise. I want a lawn and a dog. I want a garden where I can putter around in my old age growing tomatoes or something just for fun. If you want to die in a tiny apartment, that's great. Everyone should have what they want. But I think a lot of people want a little space.
I want to spread out a bit. Big concentrations of population have all sorts of statistical problems. The worst schools, the worst crime, the worst corruption, the least political agency, the highest stress... there are reasons to not want it. There are also good things. The best hospitals, the best schools, the most economic opportunities, wonderful museums, concerts, plays, wonderful shops, etc.
Just let what is going to happen happen.
We have a lot of stuff that has changed in our society. The entry of women into pretty much every profession. The changing notion of when you have a family. The changing notion of what it means to be married in the first place. All of that. How could it not have an impact on birth rates? Of course it will.
And this is just going to play out. Probably the most aggressive career seeking women that spend the least energy on trying to get a family will statistically have fewer children. That will play out in time in the population. With the cultural tropes that push that below replacement rate becoming less and less common such that AT LEAST there is replacement. Who thinks that when we made all those changes we got everything 100% right? Of course we didn't. This is an experiment.
We'll see what happens. But there's no population problem up or down in the modern industrialized West. We're fine. And that's before even talking about immigration which is its own little shit show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
YOU DIDN"T READ MY LINK... this is not the "angry caps" this is the "yelling at a thick mother fucker caps"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have to assume at this point you don't read anything because you're terrified to figure out you're wrong. Christ... Fucking read it.
Bremen school shooting
4 dead 1913
Cologne school massacre
10 dead 1964
Erlangen school massacre
2 dead 1972
Eppstein school shooting
5 dead 1983
Erfurt school massacre
16 dead 2002
Adam Labus
3 dead 2002
Winnenden school shooting
15 dead 2009
And that isn't even a comprehensive list... that includes pre war school shootings, west germany, and post unification germany. It has no data on east german actions during that time. Maybe there was nothing, but lets be real... there are mass school shootings in CHINA "RIGHT NOW"... so that's unlikely.
What we're running into again here, is that you're profoundly ignorant. This is not an insult. It is a statement of FACT.
I have posted that link at least three times in this discussion. You've read it ZERO times.
You say "There only was one single school shooting in german history." when theirs been AT LEAST three since 2000. Now you can say "but less than the US"... I'm sure you're thinking that because it would be a very stupid thing for you to do.
The US has roughly 4 times the population of Germany. So look at that list and imagine it being 4 times larger. Because just factoring for population... it would have to be.
You listened to NOTHING. In the last 60 years, it would take "FIVE" dead kids in Ireland to match US statistics. 5. Actually take your brain damaged head out of your ass and look at the data. Factor for population. Apperciate the statistics are very thin.
In the US since 1959 we've had something like 242 kids get killed in a country of 325 million. So... 242/325 million people/59 years = 0.0126205997392438 dead kids per million per year.
Your narrative is just that. It's a story. It is dragons and unicorns.
You said: "There only was one single school shooting in german history."... You're wrong.
As to western values being "illiberal"... compared to what actually manefest power in the world?
Its very easy to judge people when you compare them against things that don't exist. Very easy to judge anything... your car isn't as good as this make believe space ship... feel that is fair or reasonable?
Of course not.
We've shown more restraint, built more mutually beneficial systems... I mean, who do we have to prove our selves to here here? Which power would you have instead?
As to you not wanting the security grid to drop... well, here we have you wanting to eat your cake and have it too.
Which is it? Cake in your hand or cake in your belly? Can't have both. Do you want the a beneign hegemony that has created the existing order or would you like the power that built it to just... walk away?
I really want the various detractors to experience what the world would be like without the US. The status quo of peace you presume is not natural. It was created by the British empire and then sustained and strengthened by the American republic.
Don't like it? Again, my vote is that my people walk.
As to philosophy, you can argue the whichness of the why all you like whilst your nation burns. I don't really care. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of what would happen. You can quibble about that all you like as your peaceful neighbors suddenly go hostile and invade. I would do nothing to encourage it beyond simply not being there to stop it. That it would happen is certain. You disagree? Fine. Then the security grid dropping won't bother you. Another vote for the Americans leaving. :-)
As to "millions" you apparently have reading comprehension issues. I said in the quote you quoted me in "uncounted millions". I didn't say a few million or a million. Uncounted millions can be any number of millions... from here to infinity.
And really, that you chose THAT to respond to and you demonstrated a truly pathetic grasp of the english language... We're done. You're an idiot.
Your sarcasm simply means you want to see what the world would look like without that security network in place.
Well, whilst I understand why we put it in place and believe it to be in the interest of the world that it remain... I actually agree that it should be removed.
Not because it is in the world's interest but because it is in my own nation's interest. The security network is expensive and exposes the US to risks and entanglements with foreign conflicts that I'd just assume not engage my nation in at all.
This means I am accepting your proposal whilst still seeing things accurately. I am accepting the genocides and the horrible wars that will sweep over the world burning nations to ash as they challenge each other for power.
It isn't my nation's fight. And beyond that, in the shadow of American security we have millions of naive ingrates like "you" that don't respect the value of that blood and the peace it has brought to uncounted millions. You don't deserve it.
I want my people to go home, shut down all the foreign military bases, and let the world go back to "nature". If you want to trade or travel to the US there after, you'll find me very friendly and reasonable. But if you scream for the US to come save you... I'll say "no".
whilst I appreciate your humor... and I do... I laughed... the underlying point remains and is valid.
I gave you the data on US and German school shootings.... correcting for population differences, Germany's numbers are higher.
Process that.