China and Japan have plenty of people, but they are less aggressive historically than Europe and the US. Before Africa was enslaved and ripped apart, it had plenty of people, before the USA was stolen from the natives, it was filled with people who werent very aggressive.
I'll admit that the most aggressive people are on top, but this also means that they are the most hated. How do you think the Average native American, African American, etc feels about being oppressed by aggression?
When you are aggressive towards others, even if those others arent naturally aggressive, over time it makes them become aggressive. This is the problem we have with terrorism. We attacked Iraq first, Iraq did not attack us first, so we just created millions of aggressive Iraqis who might have been passive if we had not expressed aggression toward them.
When you project aggression, you usually get an aggressive response in return. When you treat your neighbors like the enemy they'll eventually act like an enemy. This is whats happening in the middle east. This happened with the Native Americans, this happened with Black Americans, now I admit, all these other groups lost the battle of aggression and lost the wars, but you have to think long term. Can the USA really win every war forever? If we don't stop being aggressive then how are we going to handle an endless stream of terrorism, or even countries like North Korea or China? Aggression won't help against every country because some countries have literally nothing to lose, more people, and an ability to be more aggressive than us. North Korea would have no problem nuking us simply because their people are starving to death and if we nuke them its not going to have the same kind of effect as if they nuke us. If we get nuked our entire civilization will crumble, if they get nuked then its one less dictatorship. They don't have much to lose, and its the same way in the middle east. People in the middle east have literally nothing to lose by blowing themselves up to kill 10 of us. They know that one life of theirs is worth 10 of ours, and what we seem to not be able to figure out is, we are completely outnumbered and can never win every war. There are a billion muslims, billions of Chinese, and millions of North Korean soldiers. It's simply impossible for us to think we can win in a war against these people, we couldnt even win in a nuking contest. The only reason China isnt getting into a nuking contest is because they are in the capitalism contest instead, but a physical war with China right now would do more damage to us than to China and they know this. They simply don't fear our aggression, and theres lots of countries which don't fear our aggression and which are economically cleaning house as well. China is a real problem if you think we can continue to be aggressive because China is going to eventually become the next superpower and why do they need us once that happens?
This is your nature, your way of thinking, your opinions. Not every human believes in war, in fact the majority don't. The majority of humans are either starving to death in third world countries, or they are in peaceful societies. The only country that likes war is the USA and perhaps a few dictatorships around the world. The majority of people on this earth evolved from tribal societies not big cities. The Romans evolved from big cities but it's not like all of us evolved from Rome, in the the majority of us may not have evolved from Rome. Egypt, Rome, and perhaps China, are the 3 major civilizations. China built a wall to protect itself from the barbarians. Rome had war after war until eventually it fell apart. Egypt I don't know enough about the history of it, but they lost plenty of wars too.
Basically every group of major civilization wins and loses wars and has been winning and losing wars throughout history. The reasons for this before were due to competition for resources. There was not enough food to feed the world so we had to fight for our food, but now we don't have that excuse. There is no reason to have wars now, we don't need to fight for food, oil, or anything else, yes we might want to because it benefits our economy but we don't have to.
World War 2? You don't prevent World War 3 by building the weapons to help make World War 3 possible, so the USA builds all these fancy weapons which eventually will get into the hands of terrorists or whoever is the new enemy of America, and then at some point we will have World War 3. The way to end war is to simply give every country a share in the global economy.
Economics are so sophisticated now that 99% of all situations can be solved through deals, contracts and trade, theres no reason for physical war at this point when you can have non physical war. Physical war is foolish in most cases. We beat the Soviets without having World War 3 and we should have learned something from this, but I guess we didnt.
The way to win wars is to win the war of global influence, and to win the economic competition to gain that influence, it has absolutely nothing to do with physical war. We simply cannot afford to have another World War so building weapons for it is pointless. Why have thousands of nukes we know we can't ever use without killing everyone and everything on earth?
You assume aggression is a part of human nature, its only a part of some humans nature. Perhaps 25% of all humans are aggressive, like war, and want to control everyone and everything, the other 75% of people just want to secure their own existance and going to war does nothing to secure your existance. If you want to invent something, instead of wasting 400 billion a year on figuring out how to kill people, spend 400 billion figuring out how to extend the human lifespan, figure out how to cure illness, figure out how to educate the world so the world can evolve to the level beyond physical expression and into the war of ideas, thoughts and mind sciences. If you want to control the world, figure out how to do it with your mind instead of with your sword, mind control is the most powerful military weapon, not bombs. If you learned anything from Hitler, Bin Laden, or any of these people, they didnt gain power just through force, they won people over mentally.
The slave masters were predators, the slaves were farmers and workers. As far back as you go in history, there has always been the warrior class and the farmer class and its not always true that war increases the chances of survival. In fact, warrior clans and tribes usually have shorter lifespans than farmers. Now I will admit, war is what this country is founded on, and it did work in America, but I don't think it promotes the long term survival of the species or the individual. War is something that you'll eventually lose. Rome fell, remember? So war is ultimately a never ending conflict between two sides in which no one really ever wins or loses and both sides eventually lose. If you win now you could lose 100 years from now when we have a nuclear war and everyone dies. Now I admit most of us may not be around 100 years from now, but your kids might be around so you have to think longterm.
Maybe if computer science as a major actually meant computer science and not math science more people would be computer science majors. I changed my major because I got tired of the math. Why do I need calculus for computer science? So I can help launch the space shuttle? Some schools want multiple years of calculus. They need to teach math thats actually applied to computers and not just make computer science into a mathfest.
There are new technologies now like DTV and IPTV, anyone can make their own show now. All you have to do is help build the technology and create a petition for a new TechIPTV
The military and many scientists have developed chemicals which can make anyone gay. It's not a choice at all, fruitflies have been made gay, its a gene of some sort which can be turned on and off somehow. If it were a choice then no one would ever choose to be gay, theres no advantage to being gay.
We could also build underwater or underground before going into space. When can we start work on our underground or underwater cities? Being a construction worker will be fun again.
If we were smart we'd keep creating jobs. We could be building millions of housing units on mars now if we shuttled thousands of robots, and we need humans to design the house and remotely control the bots.
our brains allow us to control nature, not just exist in it. We can do whatever want, but we should be responsible when it comes to genetics because it puts our entire species at risk.
If a person wants to design their genes let them, but there must be some rules and standards.
I2P along with Tor are both NSA developed. Now, as much as I like the NSA, I find it funny that they always develop the most "secure" software. SELinux for example.
So you are telling me, Steven Hawking should be allowed to die because hes sick? He is a genius of a scientist who is physically disabled, what is your point?
People should never be allowed to die, people as they grow older also gain more knowledge, more intelligence, and with this they become more valueable to society. Why should we train a bunch of new people to get advanced degrees when we can keep people who have degrees but who are in need of medical care working? Why waste time retraining minds when you can train them once and then make those minds last as long as you can?
When you sell products which are known to cause diabetes, you cannot blame the diabetics, a lot of them are children who are obese and sick because McDonalds marketed to kids, or because breakfast cereals which are unhealthy are marketed to kids. Do you want to start blaming the kids for not reading the ingredients in the food you gave them?
We arent going to survive very long if we blame the victim for what corporations have done. This is like blaming the tabacco smokers for killing themselves, sure if they started smoking as an adult, but most start smoking as teenagers. Once again if you sell toxins to teenages and kids, when they become adults and have health problems whos fault is it?
Now we have genetically modified foods, if we sell these to kids and our kids grow into mutants whos fault is it? Finally why do we want to eliminate our own species? There is no logic in this. If there are aliens in space I hope someday we have a space war just so we can stop focusing on each other. How are we going to populate mars if we never make it off earth? Why is it bad to have a big population? Someone has to populate the moon, mars, and expand into space and trying to use capitalism to guide evolution will get people into space, but it won't be any of us because we arent as rich as Bill Gates and canont afford our own private trip to mars.
Diabetics, at least type 2s, arent born with a genetic disorder or a disease, they are given diabetes by food companies putting high fructose corn syrup and other stuff in the food.
Cancer, once again most people arent born with it, but consume the wrong products, work in the wrong environment, and you might get cancer.
No one is immune to toxic chemicals, you might not get diabetes but you'll still have a heart attack. You may not get cancer but you'll get something, everyone gets sick when they get old and its not because of genes, its because of the way we treat the environment, the low quality food we consume, etc.
Ultimately, evolution in this way wont really matter because only intellectual evolution matters. Generating a bunch of dumb atheletes or a bunch of models won't help the world survive or the species survive, generating a bunch of Einstiens will. We arent really using capitalism to reward genius, instead we are using capitalism to reward greed, the result is the greediest will rise to the top and they may not always be the smartest or strongest, just the richest and greediest. This is fine if our species only exists to collect money, but if we plan to go into space and expand our species for thousands of years into the future, our ability to make money wont matter when it comes to science, education, knowledge, etc.
Most people who have money were born with money. Very few people who have money have some genetic gift for making money, this is actually a very rare trait that 99% of the population does not have. Warren Buffet, Donald Trump and people like this have the gift, but Bill Gates was born wealthy and grew up to be worlds richest man.
The simple fact is, this new form of capital based evolution does not apply to people who inherit wealth, and since most people who are rich inherited it, this means we are rewarding the weak for what their parents did, once again ruining natural selection.
What you say about the sick, lets see, physical health has nothing to do with genes. Breaking your hip, becoming diabetic, these things have more to do with the ridiculous western diet and not consuming enough calcium to protect your bones. Medical care has no influence on natural selection because society is currently set up to make everyone sick, so we all are going to die of either cancer, heart disease, etc. Natural selection was when we all had our own special diets and still died, now we all are eating deadly foods and we all are dying because of it, so the only natural selection here is selecting the way you want to die.
I think you are 100% wrong, the survival abilities and the ability to make money are related but they arent the same. Someone can have survival abilities, they could be a genius, but they might be born so poor that they arent even given the chance to become a stock broker. You cannot play the market without having money to sit at the table.
How do they know who a person is if they arent from their ISP or computer? What if you use wifi? what if its a college network? The NSA does not have unlimited tracking powers. They are good but lets be serious, there are ways to be annonymous online and offline. We all know the ways and we all know why its nearly impossible to stop.
People assume that evolution works for the better, but what if the strongest don't survive and the weak with money survive instead? Genetic strength does not matter and capitalism has already destroyed natural selection.
Air America are liberals, liberals arent always progressives. Liberals have a cultural agenda while progressives have a policy agenda. So while one group wants to legalize gay marriage, the other group wants universal healthcare, and often theres war between the factions of the far left and the Democrats.
Air America sucks because they do it all wrong. No ones going to listen to the government controlled radio to get their news, at least not if they are the progressive left or the far left, Air America is centerist left. Center left is actually right.
Think of it this way, how many people on Air America would agree to fighting for corporate responsibility? Have they suggested the corporations arent people? Air America is not the left. Al Franken? Who is he? They also have hosts no ones ever heard of or who don't deserve the right to be hosts. Instead of hollywood hosts you need to select some professors. Professors are the real leaders of the left, not the hollywood liberals. The professors are the ones who can talk about the real issues, ask the real questions. The hosts on Air America just react to the news.
Slashdot Mirror
China and Japan have plenty of people, but they are less aggressive historically than Europe and the US. Before Africa was enslaved and ripped apart, it had plenty of people, before the USA was stolen from the natives, it was filled with people who werent very aggressive.
I'll admit that the most aggressive people are on top, but this also means that they are the most hated. How do you think the Average native American, African American, etc feels about being oppressed by aggression?
When you are aggressive towards others, even if those others arent naturally aggressive, over time it makes them become aggressive. This is the problem we have with terrorism. We attacked Iraq first, Iraq did not attack us first, so we just created millions of aggressive Iraqis who might have been passive if we had not expressed aggression toward them.
When you project aggression, you usually get an aggressive response in return. When you treat your neighbors like the enemy they'll eventually act like an enemy. This is whats happening in the middle east. This happened with the Native Americans, this happened with Black Americans, now I admit, all these other groups lost the battle of aggression and lost the wars, but you have to think long term. Can the USA really win every war forever? If we don't stop being aggressive then how are we going to handle an endless stream of terrorism, or even countries like North Korea or China? Aggression won't help against every country because some countries have literally nothing to lose, more people, and an ability to be more aggressive than us. North Korea would have no problem nuking us simply because their people are starving to death and if we nuke them its not going to have the same kind of effect as if they nuke us. If we get nuked our entire civilization will crumble, if they get nuked then its one less dictatorship. They don't have much to lose, and its the same way in the middle east. People in the middle east have literally nothing to lose by blowing themselves up to kill 10 of us. They know that one life of theirs is worth 10 of ours, and what we seem to not be able to figure out is, we are completely outnumbered and can never win every war. There are a billion muslims, billions of Chinese, and millions of North Korean soldiers. It's simply impossible for us to think we can win in a war against these people, we couldnt even win in a nuking contest. The only reason China isnt getting into a nuking contest is because they are in the capitalism contest instead, but a physical war with China right now would do more damage to us than to China and they know this. They simply don't fear our aggression, and theres lots of countries which don't fear our aggression and which are economically cleaning house as well. China is a real problem if you think we can continue to be aggressive because China is going to eventually become the next superpower and why do they need us once that happens?
This is your nature, your way of thinking, your opinions. Not every human believes in war, in fact the majority don't. The majority of humans are either starving to death in third world countries, or they are in peaceful societies. The only country that likes war is the USA and perhaps a few dictatorships around the world. The majority of people on this earth evolved from tribal societies not big cities. The Romans evolved from big cities but it's not like all of us evolved from Rome, in the the majority of us may not have evolved from Rome. Egypt, Rome, and perhaps China, are the 3 major civilizations. China built a wall to protect itself from the barbarians. Rome had war after war until eventually it fell apart. Egypt I don't know enough about the history of it, but they lost plenty of wars too.
Basically every group of major civilization wins and loses wars and has been winning and losing wars throughout history. The reasons for this before were due to competition for resources. There was not enough food to feed the world so we had to fight for our food, but now we don't have that excuse. There is no reason to have wars now, we don't need to fight for food, oil, or anything else, yes we might want to because it benefits our economy but we don't have to.
World War 2? You don't prevent World War 3 by building the weapons to help make World War 3 possible, so the USA builds all these fancy weapons which eventually will get into the hands of terrorists or whoever is the new enemy of America, and then at some point we will have World War 3. The way to end war is to simply give every country a share in the global economy.
Economics are so sophisticated now that 99% of all situations can be solved through deals, contracts and trade, theres no reason for physical war at this point when you can have non physical war. Physical war is foolish in most cases. We beat the Soviets without having World War 3 and we should have learned something from this, but I guess we didnt.
The way to win wars is to win the war of global influence, and to win the economic competition to gain that influence, it has absolutely nothing to do with physical war. We simply cannot afford to have another World War so building weapons for it is pointless. Why have thousands of nukes we know we can't ever use without killing everyone and everything on earth?
You assume aggression is a part of human nature, its only a part of some humans nature. Perhaps 25% of all humans are aggressive, like war, and want to control everyone and everything, the other 75% of people just want to secure their own existance and going to war does nothing to secure your existance. If you want to invent something, instead of wasting 400 billion a year on figuring out how to kill people, spend 400 billion figuring out how to extend the human lifespan, figure out how to cure illness, figure out how to educate the world so the world can evolve to the level beyond physical expression and into the war of ideas, thoughts and mind sciences. If you want to control the world, figure out how to do it with your mind instead of with your sword, mind control is the most powerful military weapon, not bombs. If you learned anything from Hitler, Bin Laden, or any of these people, they didnt gain power just through force, they won people over mentally.
The slave masters were predators, the slaves were farmers and workers. As far back as you go in history, there has always been the warrior class and the farmer class and its not always true that war increases the chances of survival. In fact, warrior clans and tribes usually have shorter lifespans than farmers. Now I will admit, war is what this country is founded on, and it did work in America, but I don't think it promotes the long term survival of the species or the individual. War is something that you'll eventually lose. Rome fell, remember? So war is ultimately a never ending conflict between two sides in which no one really ever wins or loses and both sides eventually lose. If you win now you could lose 100 years from now when we have a nuclear war and everyone dies. Now I admit most of us may not be around 100 years from now, but your kids might be around so you have to think longterm.
Communism is only democracy of the workplace. Tyranny of the workplace such as the structure of Walmart, thats capitalism.
Maybe if computer science as a major actually meant computer science and not math science more people would be computer science majors. I changed my major because I got tired of the math. Why do I need calculus for computer science? So I can help launch the space shuttle? Some schools want multiple years of calculus. They need to teach math thats actually applied to computers and not just make computer science into a mathfest.
There are new technologies now like DTV and IPTV, anyone can make their own show now. All you have to do is help build the technology and create a petition for a new TechIPTV
Create a new TechTV using DTV and IPTV technology. http://participatoryculture.org/
Martin Sargent needs to create his own show and put it online. He could use this http://participatoryculture.org/
It also applies to inter-racial couples.
Well thats too bad. No one forces you to bring your personal life to your job.
The military and many scientists have developed chemicals which can make anyone gay. It's not a choice at all, fruitflies have been made gay, its a gene of some sort which can be turned on and off somehow. If it were a choice then no one would ever choose to be gay, theres no advantage to being gay.
Gay is not a race, its not like you have to tell all your employees your sexual orientation.
We could also build underwater or underground before going into space. When can we start work on our underground or underwater cities? Being a construction worker will be fun again.
If we were smart we'd keep creating jobs. We could be building millions of housing units on mars now if we shuttled thousands of robots, and we need humans to design the house and remotely control the bots.
Thats why we don't depend on that industry. Buy your drugs in India, take a vacation and come back with your genes fixed.
our brains allow us to control nature, not just exist in it. We can do whatever want, but we should be responsible when it comes to genetics because it puts our entire species at risk. If a person wants to design their genes let them, but there must be some rules and standards.
I2P along with Tor are both NSA developed. Now, as much as I like the NSA, I find it funny that they always develop the most "secure" software. SELinux for example.
So you are telling me, Steven Hawking should be allowed to die because hes sick? He is a genius of a scientist who is physically disabled, what is your point?
People should never be allowed to die, people as they grow older also gain more knowledge, more intelligence, and with this they become more valueable to society. Why should we train a bunch of new people to get advanced degrees when we can keep people who have degrees but who are in need of medical care working? Why waste time retraining minds when you can train them once and then make those minds last as long as you can?
When you sell products which are known to cause diabetes, you cannot blame the diabetics, a lot of them are children who are obese and sick because McDonalds marketed to kids, or because breakfast cereals which are unhealthy are marketed to kids. Do you want to start blaming the kids for not reading the ingredients in the food you gave them?
We arent going to survive very long if we blame the victim for what corporations have done. This is like blaming the tabacco smokers for killing themselves, sure if they started smoking as an adult, but most start smoking as teenagers. Once again if you sell toxins to teenages and kids, when they become adults and have health problems whos fault is it?
Now we have genetically modified foods, if we sell these to kids and our kids grow into mutants whos fault is it? Finally why do we want to eliminate our own species? There is no logic in this. If there are aliens in space I hope someday we have a space war just so we can stop focusing on each other. How are we going to populate mars if we never make it off earth? Why is it bad to have a big population? Someone has to populate the moon, mars, and expand into space and trying to use capitalism to guide evolution will get people into space, but it won't be any of us because we arent as rich as Bill Gates and canont afford our own private trip to mars.
Diabetics, at least type 2s, arent born with a genetic disorder or a disease, they are given diabetes by food companies putting high fructose corn syrup and other stuff in the food.
Cancer, once again most people arent born with it, but consume the wrong products, work in the wrong environment, and you might get cancer.
No one is immune to toxic chemicals, you might not get diabetes but you'll still have a heart attack. You may not get cancer but you'll get something, everyone gets sick when they get old and its not because of genes, its because of the way we treat the environment, the low quality food we consume, etc.
Ultimately, evolution in this way wont really matter because only intellectual evolution matters. Generating a bunch of dumb atheletes or a bunch of models won't help the world survive or the species survive, generating a bunch of Einstiens will. We arent really using capitalism to reward genius, instead we are using capitalism to reward greed, the result is the greediest will rise to the top and they may not always be the smartest or strongest, just the richest and greediest. This is fine if our species only exists to collect money, but if we plan to go into space and expand our species for thousands of years into the future, our ability to make money wont matter when it comes to science, education, knowledge, etc.
Most people who have money were born with money. Very few people who have money have some genetic gift for making money, this is actually a very rare trait that 99% of the population does not have. Warren Buffet, Donald Trump and people like this have the gift, but Bill Gates was born wealthy and grew up to be worlds richest man.
The simple fact is, this new form of capital based evolution does not apply to people who inherit wealth, and since most people who are rich inherited it, this means we are rewarding the weak for what their parents did, once again ruining natural selection.
What you say about the sick, lets see, physical health has nothing to do with genes. Breaking your hip, becoming diabetic, these things have more to do with the ridiculous western diet and not consuming enough calcium to protect your bones. Medical care has no influence on natural selection because society is currently set up to make everyone sick, so we all are going to die of either cancer, heart disease, etc. Natural selection was when we all had our own special diets and still died, now we all are eating deadly foods and we all are dying because of it, so the only natural selection here is selecting the way you want to die.
I think you are 100% wrong, the survival abilities and the ability to make money are related but they arent the same. Someone can have survival abilities, they could be a genius, but they might be born so poor that they arent even given the chance to become a stock broker. You cannot play the market without having money to sit at the table.
How do they know who a person is if they arent from their ISP or computer? What if you use wifi? what if its a college network? The NSA does not have unlimited tracking powers. They are good but lets be serious, there are ways to be annonymous online and offline. We all know the ways and we all know why its nearly impossible to stop.
Now the workers have the power to fire their bosses, watch out.
People assume that evolution works for the better, but what if the strongest don't survive and the weak with money survive instead? Genetic strength does not matter and capitalism has already destroyed natural selection.
Air America are liberals, liberals arent always progressives. Liberals have a cultural agenda while progressives have a policy agenda. So while one group wants to legalize gay marriage, the other group wants universal healthcare, and often theres war between the factions of the far left and the Democrats.
Air America sucks because they do it all wrong. No ones going to listen to the government controlled radio to get their news, at least not if they are the progressive left or the far left, Air America is centerist left. Center left is actually right.
Think of it this way, how many people on Air America would agree to fighting for corporate responsibility? Have they suggested the corporations arent people? Air America is not the left. Al Franken? Who is he? They also have hosts no ones ever heard of or who don't deserve the right to be hosts. Instead of hollywood hosts you need to select some professors. Professors are the real leaders of the left, not the hollywood liberals. The professors are the ones who can talk about the real issues, ask the real questions. The hosts on Air America just react to the news.