We have, what, 6*10^9 billion people on our planet? If exactly one in a hundred people is "smart", "handsome" and "socially capable", and the three are independent, then we have 6000 of these ubermenschen among us. That's rare, not impossible. If we call one in ten people each of these things, the number is 6 million.
I meant to point at several fallacies:
1. If the combination is rare, most people don't see it very often, if at all. Many jump to the conclusion that it is impossible. Though this may be true (we'll get there in a minute), this is still a logical mistake.
2. The article talks about two of these traits being dependent (making the previous calculation irrelevant). Here I came in and said - this may be so with our current gene pool, but when that gene pool can change.
3. Even the traits are independent as far as the genes are concerned, their distribution in the world will be dependent, since successful people are more likely to mate with successful people.
Summing it up, if, oversimplifying grossly, the "smart-genes" are independent of the "looks-genes", you'd expect rising percentages of beautiful-smart people. If they are dependent (beautiful giving a higher likelihood, or even a certainty, for dumbness), I said, you'd expect new genes that make the combination possible/likely to develop over time.
My message was not concerned with the sociology and psychology of our hypothetical future society. I see no problem with applying our standards, in our conversation, to that future society.
We're not talking about you or me "having it all" here, we're talking about the possibility of a living creature "having it all". With time, this is where evolution is going - a human who can walk and chew a gum all at once. A creature that is physically, socially and mentally able more than we currently are. Someone "having it all" wouldn't have been highly unlikely, it would have been a certainty, if not for Dr. Strangelove- and Armageddon-like scenarios, the impending death of any sun and the time limit imposed by universe's lifetime.
That's probably only as great a post as I currently think it is until you meet someone who's actually got Asperger's, someone who's not just a hypochondriac geek. Or until you begin disregarding whatever your life was until you and the people around you hit your twenties.
It seems strange to me that something that *I* perceive as a learned trait (social aptitude) could be a genetic thing, let alone cause autism, but I'll leave that to the experts.
Shouldn't seem any odder than the fact that you can never teach chimpanzees as much of certain things as you expect humans to be able learn, maybe even by themselves. Or any odder than the fact that you can't expect a gold fish to feel nostalgic.
Here's an idea: What makes people laugh has as much to do with the social situation and the overall social standing (looks included) of the person telling the joke as it has with the joke itself (and when I say "the joke itself" I mean the presentation as much as I mean the content). People are unaware of this. When people want someone who would make them laugh, they're actually wishing for someone whose company they crave, for evolutionary reasons they're not cognizant of, and whom they try to grow closer to by laughing at their jokes and otherwise showering with affection.
Brave New World, of all things? There it's controlled, deliberate. Your post reminded me more of The Mote in God's Eye. VERY MINOR SPOILER: The aliens there had branched into completely different species.
Interesting, but dangerous, especially for Slashdot's typical crowd. The way most of the milder psychiatric and neurological conditions are defined these days, you have to be extremely healthy and self-confident to not see in yourself almost each and every of these conditions.
And in others. Though it does make for a good pass-time to spot potential conditions in others.
Again the "you can't have it all" fallacy? Even if it's impossible with today's genes to be both brilliant, handsome and socially capable (which I doubt), it's not at all impossible that, over time, genes will mutate and spread so that one can be all of these.
Look, I respect the effort, and recognize that the current result is leaps and bounds beyond anything I'm capable of producing at this time, both in terms of know-how and determination, but - and this was the entire point - the game is not yet ready. Not for beta, not for less. Also, mind you, the last time I tried it, it was much worse. I clicked it again after posting my message, and it has improved significantly... but it's still not ready. Maybe I'm just an idiot, I don't know, but the game I saw there the previous time let you progress only by sticking around long enough and collecting the daily bonus twenty dollars for voting for the game again and again. With anything else - the more you toiled, the worse off you were.
it would seem that risks of infection from a decaying body would present a more compelling reason to dispose of the body (burial, burning, ingesting by a spiritual specialist, etc.).
If you bury the corpse soon enough, it presents little more risk of infection than a living body does, if at all.
Slashdot Mirror
We have, what, 6*10^9 billion people on our planet? If exactly one in a hundred people is "smart", "handsome" and "socially capable", and the three are independent, then we have 6000 of these ubermenschen among us. That's rare, not impossible. If we call one in ten people each of these things, the number is 6 million.
I meant to point at several fallacies:
1. If the combination is rare, most people don't see it very often, if at all. Many jump to the conclusion that it is impossible. Though this may be true (we'll get there in a minute), this is still a logical mistake.
2. The article talks about two of these traits being dependent (making the previous calculation irrelevant). Here I came in and said - this may be so with our current gene pool, but when that gene pool can change.
3. Even the traits are independent as far as the genes are concerned, their distribution in the world will be dependent, since successful people are more likely to mate with successful people.
Summing it up, if, oversimplifying grossly, the "smart-genes" are independent of the "looks-genes", you'd expect rising percentages of beautiful-smart people. If they are dependent (beautiful giving a higher likelihood, or even a certainty, for dumbness), I said, you'd expect new genes that make the combination possible/likely to develop over time.
My message was not concerned with the sociology and psychology of our hypothetical future society. I see no problem with applying our standards, in our conversation, to that future society.
We're not talking about you or me "having it all" here, we're talking about the possibility of a living creature "having it all". With time, this is where evolution is going - a human who can walk and chew a gum all at once. A creature that is physically, socially and mentally able more than we currently are. Someone "having it all" wouldn't have been highly unlikely, it would have been a certainty, if not for Dr. Strangelove- and Armageddon-like scenarios, the impending death of any sun and the time limit imposed by universe's lifetime.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you mean by "Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you our new Slashdot motto."
That's probably only as great a post as I currently think it is until you meet someone who's actually got Asperger's, someone who's not just a hypochondriac geek. Or until you begin disregarding whatever your life was until you and the people around you hit your twenties.
So you have dealings with women? You lucky bastard!
Here's an idea: What makes people laugh has as much to do with the social situation and the overall social standing (looks included) of the person telling the joke as it has with the joke itself (and when I say "the joke itself" I mean the presentation as much as I mean the content). People are unaware of this. When people want someone who would make them laugh, they're actually wishing for someone whose company they crave, for evolutionary reasons they're not cognizant of, and whom they try to grow closer to by laughing at their jokes and otherwise showering with affection.
Brave New World, of all things? There it's controlled, deliberate. Your post reminded me more of The Mote in God's Eye. VERY MINOR SPOILER: The aliens there had branched into completely different species.
Interesting, but dangerous, especially for Slashdot's typical crowd. The way most of the milder psychiatric and neurological conditions are defined these days, you have to be extremely healthy and self-confident to not see in yourself almost each and every of these conditions. And in others. Though it does make for a good pass-time to spot potential conditions in others.
Again the "you can't have it all" fallacy? Even if it's impossible with today's genes to be both brilliant, handsome and socially capable (which I doubt), it's not at all impossible that, over time, genes will mutate and spread so that one can be all of these.
I wonder if he has registered with Slashdot, and every dupe is an exciting new post.
She was a man? Then you must have shown up after midnight.
Ever funnier than "cockthirsty". Man, I love those guys.
Or, in less sensible but far more universal units, one blowjob from your mom.
Look, I respect the effort, and recognize that the current result is leaps and bounds beyond anything I'm capable of producing at this time, both in terms of know-how and determination, but - and this was the entire point - the game is not yet ready. Not for beta, not for less. Also, mind you, the last time I tried it, it was much worse. I clicked it again after posting my message, and it has improved significantly... but it's still not ready. Maybe I'm just an idiot, I don't know, but the game I saw there the previous time let you progress only by sticking around long enough and collecting the daily bonus twenty dollars for voting for the game again and again. With anything else - the more you toiled, the worse off you were.
The game you're advertising in your signature isn't ready for the limelights. Please take that link off until it's no longer as much a waste of time.
Happy fuckday to you!
...and many more!
Happy fuckday to you!
Happy fuckday, dear John!
Happy fuckday to you!
Man, what a fucking waste or resources and energy.
So naturally, the right thing to do is keep away from paradise, eh?
Where can I make a withdrawal?
Have you seen the girl in question? He meant topology alright.
Comma splices?
"written in English" - 1,740,000 hits.
But first they'll need you to read it to them.