Basically my argument boils down to a couple of key points:
Human life is sacrosanct. Any action that can directly preserve human life is worth the cost, provided it does not cost other human life.
Yes, this gets sticky when extended to a number of situations, but ideals are important.
The poor are by and large innocent, and should not be forced to do anything that is not required of the wealthier citizenry.
We have a responsibility to protect the innocent, especially in cases where previous social structures forced distinct ethnic or cultural groups to compete on unequal grounds.
I'm not pretending that poverty is something that could be easily solved, and I'm not saying that every ideal is enforceable, or that if an idealistic plan is put into place it won't be abused. I am saying that when we talk about freedom, morality, and various social issues it is useful to reflect on what is valuable. I think that the right to choose your spouse and your decision to have children is valuable. I also think there are times when the ends don't justify the means, sterilization is one of those cases.
You ask what I'm advocating, well as I said I have neither the time, will, nor expertise to solve the problem, so for now I'm advocating no sterilization. But how about less military spending, less beurocracy, more spending on drug education and rehab, less on drug enforcement, more spending on creating opportunities, not on giving handouts. Fixing the education system (just money won't do it). What the impoverished need (IMO) is broad-spectrum opportunity to become mildly successful, not scattered chances to become exceedingly successful. Creating the opportunities is the real challenge. Welfare doen't create oppprtunities (at least as currently structured), neither does sterilization (removing competition isn't creating opportunity.)
I still think that you are arguing for creating a tiered society with first and second-class citizens. This leaves the door wide open for someone to re-evaluate what is valuable to classify you as a second-class citizen. I think a tiered citizenry is wrong. No I'm not a communist, I'd much prefer a society structured on merit than either a flat society or one in which birthright is excessively weighted, but that is being hopelessly idealistic. Just because a tiered society can't (shouldn't?) be entirely avoided doesn't mean we should be helping it along..
We have created a tiered society though. One in which race is important. We should be trying to rectify our past mistakes, that is part of responsibility too. It is our responsibility that we have shoved some cultures to the outskirts - we should help them adapt.
As far as taxes go - they're nowhere near your idea of "optimized." They become less and less "optimize" the higher in the ranks of society you go.
I don't think that the only way to not be on welfare is to inherit wealth, but I do believe that the easiest way to end up on it is to be boon poor.
If you are born into poverty inheritance is a non-issue, 100% of 0 or 12% of 0 are the same thing. Of course it is an issue is the parents are unable to provide for the children I agree. It is my personal opinion that one should not have children if one is not able to provide for them. It is, however, my personal belief that I have no right to enforce my views on others.
Yes welfare is publicly supported which means that I am paying for poor people and that gives me some right to control how my dollar is spent, but I should not be able to make my dollar conditional on surrender of basic human rights.
There are moral obligations attached to living in society. One of them is protection of the innocent. Poor people are by and large innocent, poor children doubly so. So societies obligation to other peoples children stems from the inability to strip someone of thier rights without an active breach of civil trust, and the requirement that we value life.
Now I hear you saying that bearing children into poverty is a breach of civil trust, but I would argue that one cannot break the public trust merely by exercising their human rights. For instance, in a society that values human rights I cannot be enslaved, tortured, or imprisoned without trial, society also cannot morally attempt to affect my right to hold a belief or opinion under any circumstance. These are basically rights of dignity, which cannot (morally) be removed from me by virtue of being a human. There are also rights which can be removed from me, but only by if I have not lived in accordance with social rules. These rights include freedom of movement, speech, expression, and association. Basically if I break a law society can punish me by striping away some of the second class of rights.
Having children arises as an extension of freedom of expression and association. It is my natural right, not a privilege awarded me by those in power - a right that cannot morally be removed unless I break a law. Existing in poverty is not a breach of any law, and as such my social status cannot (morally) be a condition of having children.
You say that reproduction cannot be a basic human right because growing populations would destabilize society. All of recorded history disagrees with you. Human population has been steadily growing and civilization has adapted. If something that destabilizes society cannot be a human right then freedom of speech, expression, and association also cannot be basic rights. After all freedom of expression leads to protests, which leads to revolution. Revolution destabilizes society unlike anything else, yet without it we would not be where we are today. So I ask, do you think there is any such thing as a basic human right, or should we be allowed only to do such things expressly permitted by those in power?
You disagree, I know, but why? Would you argue that rights are an extension of government? Can those in power grant and remove rights as they see fit? If so then I assume you have not problem with repression of any human right, and see no dignity in human life. Do you dispute my description and classification of human rights? In what way? Do you think the right to have children is substantially different from our rights to use our bodies as we see fit (i.e. speech, assebmly, association)? How so? Or do you think that being poor is in and of itself a violation of a just law? If so why not just build a walled ghetto to keep them separate from us? If your income drop below say ~$30k we can just toss you in and let you fend for yourself.
There are also other standards of worth than wealth. If a communist party seized power in Australia they might see your logic as insidious and make you disapear. Your own logic (essentially might makes right) could not offer any defense. You would become a social liability,
Please try to wrap your brain around the consequences of your suggestion, and think about thinks less myopically. Oh and while I addressed some of the more lucid points of your post you are in fact the one ignoring me.
For instance you initially seemed to believe that unproductive members of society can be genetically identified. Maybe you've changed your mind and now think that all poor people should be sterilized. In any case you originally said, "If your genes are so messed up that you cannot survive by yourself and are permanently dependent on a welfare-system." (emphasis mine)
I wholly disagree and gave examples.. You countered that addiction is partially genetic and inferring that we should sterilized potential addicts. I demonstrated that this was idiotic and asked that you should try to supply a different criteria for finding people who are unfit to breed. You ignored me.
So lets try this again point me to a gene that warrants the carrier being sterilized. Or do we just sterilize all poor people?
You keep asking why I think race is important when you see fit to ignore it. I keep answering. (so there is no confusion here I'm addressing point 2) Here it is again:
Race is an issue whether you care about it or not because there is more to poverty than ability to work. The fact that some people are poor because their parents were poor, because their grandparents weren't allowed to be part of society means that society is at least partially responsible for the well being of those people.
(here's point 1) RACE AND SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHICS ARE LINKED. Any discussion of poverty ought to include a discussion of race. Maybe this won't be the case in the future, but it has been throughout history.
Case in point: in America the poor population is disproportionately black. This isn't because black people either are genetically deficient it is because wealth (or lack thereof) is inherited. Social mobility isn't what we pretend it to be, but a culture is poor now might not be poor for ever (see the Irish immegration to America.) I'm not sure how eliminating a large portion of a culture doesn't bother you.
Arguments that cultures deserve to be sterilized reduce to arguments that races ought to be sterilized. You might not care how systematic sterilization of poor people will affect cultures other than your own, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. History is rife with examples of people carrying out your "(ultimate) solution." It's called genocide. You just advocate slow genocide as opposed to fast genocide. The reason genocide is occasionally politically viable is because the people being eliminated aren't considered productive members of society by those in power.
Because you don't care about the race of poor people doesn't mean it isn't an issue. (here is point 3) I agree that a collapse in the welfare system would be disastrous, but your argue that your "(ultimate) solution" is an even more troubling problem. The reason sterilization is such a terrible thig is because it divides the population into first class and second class citizens. First class citizens who have purchased their status by their inherited wealth gain freedom. Poor people are left to die out.
Now if you'd care to address a couple of concise bullet points instead of repeating that you don't care about the consequences of your "(ultimate) solution."
Are unproductive members to be genetically screened before sterilization? If not are you ok with just sterilizing anyone who has happened along hard times? What if you lose your job?
Are there genes that should mark one for sterilization? What are they? Would you be ok with no person with that gene having ever existed?
Do you care if a culture is actively eliminated? Has a poor culture ever produced anything that you would consider valuable? Are you ok with that culture having never existed?
Do you see reproduction as a human right? If choice over parenting isn't a right how does it fail? What other rights don't meet those criteria?
If reproduction is a human right do you think how much money one has should determine how many rights one has?
"Welfare dependent" isn't something that can be genetically pre-determined. People with MS, Down's, etc. can and do work. Mentally retarded people can and do live on their own.
You went ahead and singled out addiction as dependent on welfare. Really? Someone with a genetic predisposition to addiction isn't an alcoholic, and shouldn't be treated as one. And of course no addict could contribute to society, like say Edger Allen Poe or Ernest Hemingway. Should we have bred them out? Please name one single disorder that renders the afflicted totally and unable to work and still able to bear children.
One should never judge someone based on what group they belong to. Each individual (and their progeny) should be judged only on his own merits. Whenever a decision is based on solely on genetics it is wrong; it relies on the assumption that all those people are the same.
For your "solution" consider the programmer who gets laid off and has to draw unemployment. He stops at the clinic, gets his genome scanned (a condition of drawing unemployment) and is found to have a genetic predisposition for developing Alzheimer's. *snip We can't have that gene in the general population.
I'm not saying that everyone is equal in every regard; I'm just saying calling one genetic group "better" than another is dangerous.
I agree, if somebody needs the welfare-system (s)he should be sterilized, regardless of being part of whatever group.
Look at the population on welfare - it is disproportionately non-white. Is that because non-white people are genetically disabled?
ABILITY TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON ABILITY TO WORK.
The reason ethnic minorities enters into the picture is because humanity has a long history of mistreating those different from the majority. When genetics and working status combine to determine breedability it is only a mater of time before Hispanicness or Arabness and so forth become genetic disorders (depending on where you live.) If an ethnic minority is unable to gain employment it does not mean that they should be removed from the gene pool.
Your right, I didn't pose any solutions, and I'm not a particularly a fan of the status quo. Any potential solution would take considerably more time and effort to even describe than I'm willing to put into a/. post. Basically, there are no easy answers, and any attempt to force easy solutions (like eugenics) on a difficult problem will only make matters worse. The welfare system might not be in good shape, but I don't think it is accurate to say that there are more people on welfare than ever before. That may be true by just looking at raw numbers, but the relevant question is is there a proportionately larger section of society on welfare. I'm going to take a shot in the dark and wager that a larger portion of society was on welfare during the great depression.
Genetics determines physical characteristics. The nature of the brain in other animals- even chimps - are fundementally different from ours. Biology and behavior aren't inseperable, but behavior in a group with similar biology is not genetically predetermined.
I addressed this indirectly in the GP, with my comment about organic diseases.
I'm curious as to what genetic disorders would make someone totally dependent on a welfare system.
If a person is capable of finding a mate and engaging in the act of procreation they are almost certainly capable of engaging in menial labor.
What about the case where an ethnic minority is unable to support itself except on handouts because they are unable to find employment? Not that they couldn't do some work, but no one is willing to pay them for what they can do. Should they be banned from procreating? What is the difference between someone with Down's or a malformed leg who can do assembly line type stuff, but can't find employment and segregated ethnic population? Neither had any choice to be born as they were.
I'm not saying that everyone is equal in every regard; I'm just saying calling one genetic group "better" than another is dangerous.
The criteria you supplied, the ability to find work, depends on more than genetics. It depends on the supply of work, as well as the perceptions of those doing the hiring.
Height and weight are physical traits, the role of genetics in determining physical factors is pretty well established. Height and weight are a little bit trickier because they are influenced by the environment (primarily diet) but in the end genetics plays a large roll.
On the other hand intelligence is not a physical characteristic, and the role of genetics in behavioral characteristics is not, to my knowledge, established. So no, intelligence is not similar to physical characteristics. Of course, the water can be muddied by things like organic mental disorders, but that's another topic.
Intelligence and behavior are at the very least inseparable from environmental factors, and at the very most wholly formed by environmental factors. Note that they are cannot be wholly formed by genetics due to the fact that identical twins don't have identical intelligence, nor identical behavior.
The problem is that it is natural selection, not rational selection or ethical selection.
You run into serious ethical issues when you start to assign better/worse - or defective labels to genetic trats. Someone who is "normal" is no better, than someone with MS or Down's.
As far as evolution is concerned if you are able to find a mate there is no reason why you shouldn't procreate. When you start talking about better genes you imply that evolution has a goal or an endpoint, which it doesn't.
Evolution isn't an ethical beast, but attempting to control it based on our short-sighted values is unethical. Who knows what benefical trait will spring out of a genetic "defect?"
How you can call convincing people who were born with some kind of genetic disorder, which didn't prevent them from finding a mate, not to have children "better ethics" is beyond me.
I disagree that that was the point afak_ianal was trying to make, and also disagree that there is a disproportionately large number of hot dumb people.
First of all, I think that afak_ianal was trying to say that it seems to him that stupid people are having lots of babies - without regard to hotness. And well, I can't argue with that. However, I don't think that stupid people have a genetic predisposition to have stupid babies. I do think that the (sub)culture that failed to develop the mental facalties of the parents is likely to have the same effect on the children. I also don't think that stupid, at least in this case, is a classification of intelligence. The stupid couple might not put much stock in book lernin', but they might practice thier intelligence in a different way that has more benefit to them in their enviornment.
As far as the apperently large population of stupid but hot people I think it's an illusion. Hottness is generally a sign of a healthy hormonal system, I'd I've never seen anything that indicates that hormones and intelligence (or lack thereof) are in anyway linked. You and I both know that plain CompSci major might be smoking on the weekend when she puts on her make-up. It just so happens that the Art history major doing the walk of shame on Tuesday is wearing her make-up and black pants when the CompSci major is in class wearing her PJs. Add to that the fact that most technical people (whether they admit it or not) don't consider non-technical people "smart" and the fact that the education system in the US doesn't funnel women into technical fields and all the suden you have a whole lot of women, some of whom are hot, studing humanities who happen to have no class on Monday.
Unless those having 100 kids belong to an isolated community and their genetic information is not disseminated among the larger population.
Those having 2.5 kids who go out and have kids with members of a large community are having a bigger influince than those having 15 (more realistic) but only breed with a small and shrinking community. See Amish for case in point.
Unless of course there is an Amish specification event, in which case we would have to have a wholly different (and interesting) discussion.
Strangely, if you ask people which genes you expect to be more successful, people will normally say intelligence.
People might say that intelligence ought to be a successful gene, but by your own argument people are idiots...
On a related note Social-Darwinism is something that is best regarded extremely cautiously, if not ignored all together. Based on thousands of years of civilization it doesn't seem that socially undesirable people have a particularly hard time procreating. People lacking intelligence fall squarely into that camp. Now we just have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if widespread use of contraceptives will change this. My thought is that it won't.
Back to intelligence and evolution, I am not an evolutionary biologist, but is seems unlikely that intelligence maps 1:1 with genetics. Even if it did intelligence is something that is very hard to quantify. The intelligence required to solve differential equations would not be a survival trait in Sub-Saharan Africa, while the intelligence required to find the best fishing spot is not a survival trait in the U.S.
Anytime you start talking about intelligence it is crucial to recognize the tremendous role that environment has on the individual. Even if I granted that IQ tests were able to measure intelligence, (I don't,) I could not argue that two equally intelligent people from different cultures would have the same score. Now try to define culture, and try to explain to me how the U.S., or any first world country, is a contiguous culture.
Wow, that got ranty, but in short intelligence is at best loosely tied to genetics, and arguments of intelligence and evolution, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead directly to eugenics and racism.
Eh even in the US if you "take out the cops who are trying to bring you in" it's not 2nd degree murder, IANAL and all that, but I'm reasonably sure that killling a police officer who has identified himself is always first degree murder, and will likely earn you a needle in the arm if you are in a state that practices capital punishment.
People may want to believe what they read, but most of us have the ability to distinguish between reputable, non-reputable and unknown sources.
To me the whole article reads: "Media discovers that blogged stories may not be impartial." Not that mainstream media has ever reprinted a press release as news...
Another question is who reads these pro-Wal-Mart blogs? If it's only people who are already pro-Wal-Mart there is no impact on reprinting a Wal-Mart statement. If I stumble across a random pro-Wal-mart blog I'm not going to pay much attention to it. Trust is something that is built. If I am unfamiliar with a news source I'm not going to take what it says on face value.
A good example is a couple of months ago the Christian Monitor came into the news with the unfortunate kidnapping of one of its journalists in Iraq. I had not previously been exposed the CM, saw the word Christian, and drew the conclusion that the reporter was putting herself in danger by evangelizing to radically militant Muslims (not that that would make her kidnapping right). I was wrong. I did some checking and what do you know the CM is a generally reputable news source, and in the future I will not fact check things I read from their newspaper, unless I am given a reason to suspect that I should.
That is really what this is about. The mainstream, established news sources are alternating being in love with and despising blogs. Since people will never be able to fact check everything they read only news sources people are familiar with get the benefit of the doubt. Very little audience will be taken away from the New York Times because Jim in Ypsilanti thinks Congressman X is taking bribes. The key is in learning that Jim should be ignored, but maybe we should look into it if Drudge says it. However, for some reason the mainstream media feels a need to comment on a disproportionately large number of blog stories because they don't understand the notion of credibility and feel as if blogs are competing for the same market as they are.
Shouldn't the paranthetical (principle of parsimony) be a more common term than what it is describing? If I didn't know what Ockham's Razor was I'd be more confused, not less by parsimony...
But I guess while you're patronizing you might as well do it up right.
Way to many people in this discussion just think that another company can come along and steal apples buisness if they mimic apple's buisness. This is simply not true. Because apple did it first it is now much harder to get into that market. Barrier to entry and gigantic market shares being what they are any new competitor is a lost cause unless they have something ttruely unique - and I think the RIAA aren't going to let anything unique happen in the digitial music market.
Now as to whether Apple's near monopoly is a positive result of a free market (they got their first - they deserve the profit) or a negative result of a regulated industy (copyright and the RIAA) and commercial nepotism is left as an exercise to the reader.
Yeah, I asked some of the same questions, but I was under the impression that asking what is inside a black hole is eqivalent to asking what happens outside the universe, i.e. totally irrelevent to anything that happens inside.
It is interesting to think about black hole intyeriors yes (BTW how can something with zero volume have an interior?), but is it useful? It may be defeatest to say no, but then again it may be the truth...
On the otherhand, I believe that in the last couple of years string theory made some advance that indicated that information may be preserved inside a black hole. What that advance was I was totally unable to wrap my brain around, but I think it caused Stephen Hawking to loose a bet.
So if information is preserved in a black hole what happens inside may be relevent after all.
I thought the most common fatality associated with deceleration was your brain coming to a full stop within your skull. I didn't do work on this myself but I seem to remember that your torso can sustain substantially higher g forces than your skull.
I could be way off base but I seem to remember that cranial decelerations were survivable up to ~50g, and torso decelerations survivable up to ~150g.
If the parent or anyone else is familiar with the field please speak up, the graphic description has piqued my interest...
I think the biggest potential problem is not that Microsoft offers a severly crippled version of its OS, but that it could leverage its monopoly position to force the likes of Dell to intall only that version.
If that happens then Dell pays for Windows Vista crap edition, passes that cost along to the consumer, and then the consumer has to pay again for a different version that meets their needs.
Ideally it would be fine if Microsoft offered 15 different versions. If OEM A sold boxes with crap edition word would get around that that those boxes are unusable. Consumers would then buy OEM B's computers with a more usable OS.
However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if MS made it infeasable for any OEM to put a better than basic package on their machines.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they are in the movie industry they will also be privy to information that the movie isn't worth watching (let alone copying) before any of us.
- Human life is sacrosanct. Any action that can directly preserve human life is worth the cost, provided it does not cost other human life.
Yes, this gets sticky when extended to a number of situations, but ideals are important.I'm not pretending that poverty is something that could be easily solved, and I'm not saying that every ideal is enforceable, or that if an idealistic plan is put into place it won't be abused. I am saying that when we talk about freedom, morality, and various social issues it is useful to reflect on what is valuable. I think that the right to choose your spouse and your decision to have children is valuable. I also think there are times when the ends don't justify the means, sterilization is one of those cases.
You ask what I'm advocating, well as I said I have neither the time, will, nor expertise to solve the problem, so for now I'm advocating no sterilization. But how about less military spending, less beurocracy, more spending on drug education and rehab, less on drug enforcement, more spending on creating opportunities, not on giving handouts. Fixing the education system (just money won't do it). What the impoverished need (IMO) is broad-spectrum opportunity to become mildly successful, not scattered chances to become exceedingly successful. Creating the opportunities is the real challenge. Welfare doen't create oppprtunities (at least as currently structured), neither does sterilization (removing competition isn't creating opportunity.)
I still think that you are arguing for creating a tiered society with first and second-class citizens. This leaves the door wide open for someone to re-evaluate what is valuable to classify you as a second-class citizen. I think a tiered citizenry is wrong. No I'm not a communist, I'd much prefer a society structured on merit than either a flat society or one in which birthright is excessively weighted, but that is being hopelessly idealistic. Just because a tiered society can't (shouldn't?) be entirely avoided doesn't mean we should be helping it along..
We have created a tiered society though. One in which race is important. We should be trying to rectify our past mistakes, that is part of responsibility too. It is our responsibility that we have shoved some cultures to the outskirts - we should help them adapt.
As far as taxes go - they're nowhere near your idea of "optimized." They become less and less "optimize" the higher in the ranks of society you go.
I don't think that the only way to not be on welfare is to inherit wealth, but I do believe that the easiest way to end up on it is to be boon poor.
If you are born into poverty inheritance is a non-issue, 100% of 0 or 12% of 0 are the same thing. Of course it is an issue is the parents are unable to provide for the children I agree. It is my personal opinion that one should not have children if one is not able to provide for them. It is, however, my personal belief that I have no right to enforce my views on others.
Yes welfare is publicly supported which means that I am paying for poor people and that gives me some right to control how my dollar is spent, but I should not be able to make my dollar conditional on surrender of basic human rights.
There are moral obligations attached to living in society. One of them is protection of the innocent. Poor people are by and large innocent, poor children doubly so. So societies obligation to other peoples children stems from the inability to strip someone of thier rights without an active breach of civil trust, and the requirement that we value life.
Now I hear you saying that bearing children into poverty is a breach of civil trust, but I would argue that one cannot break the public trust merely by exercising their human rights. For instance, in a society that values human rights I cannot be enslaved, tortured, or imprisoned without trial, society also cannot morally attempt to affect my right to hold a belief or opinion under any circumstance. These are basically rights of dignity, which cannot (morally) be removed from me by virtue of being a human. There are also rights which can be removed from me, but only by if I have not lived in accordance with social rules. These rights include freedom of movement, speech, expression, and association. Basically if I break a law society can punish me by striping away some of the second class of rights.
Having children arises as an extension of freedom of expression and association. It is my natural right, not a privilege awarded me by those in power - a right that cannot morally be removed unless I break a law. Existing in poverty is not a breach of any law, and as such my social status cannot (morally) be a condition of having children.
You say that reproduction cannot be a basic human right because growing populations would destabilize society. All of recorded history disagrees with you. Human population has been steadily growing and civilization has adapted. If something that destabilizes society cannot be a human right then freedom of speech, expression, and association also cannot be basic rights. After all freedom of expression leads to protests, which leads to revolution. Revolution destabilizes society unlike anything else, yet without it we would not be where we are today. So I ask, do you think there is any such thing as a basic human right, or should we be allowed only to do such things expressly permitted by those in power?
You disagree, I know, but why? Would you argue that rights are an extension of government? Can those in power grant and remove rights as they see fit? If so then I assume you have not problem with repression of any human right, and see no dignity in human life. Do you dispute my description and classification of human rights? In what way? Do you think the right to have children is substantially different from our rights to use our bodies as we see fit (i.e. speech, assebmly, association)? How so? Or do you think that being poor is in and of itself a violation of a just law? If so why not just build a walled ghetto to keep them separate from us? If your income drop below say ~$30k we can just toss you in and let you fend for yourself.
There are also other standards of worth than wealth. If a communist party seized power in Australia they might see your logic as insidious and make you disapear. Your own logic (essentially might makes right) could not offer any defense. You would become a social liability,
For instance you initially seemed to believe that unproductive members of society can be genetically identified. Maybe you've changed your mind and now think that all poor people should be sterilized. In any case you originally said, "If your genes are so messed up that you cannot survive by yourself and are permanently dependent on a welfare-system." (emphasis mine)
I wholly disagree and gave examples.. You countered that addiction is partially genetic and inferring that we should sterilized potential addicts. I demonstrated that this was idiotic and asked that you should try to supply a different criteria for finding people who are unfit to breed. You ignored me.
So lets try this again point me to a gene that warrants the carrier being sterilized. Or do we just sterilize all poor people?
You keep asking why I think race is important when you see fit to ignore it. I keep answering. (so there is no confusion here I'm addressing point 2) Here it is again:
Race is an issue whether you care about it or not because there is more to poverty than ability to work. The fact that some people are poor because their parents were poor, because their grandparents weren't allowed to be part of society means that society is at least partially responsible for the well being of those people.
(here's point 1)
RACE AND SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHICS ARE LINKED. Any discussion of poverty ought to include a discussion of race. Maybe this won't be the case in the future, but it has been throughout history.
Case in point: in America the poor population is disproportionately black. This isn't because black people either are genetically deficient it is because wealth (or lack thereof) is inherited. Social mobility isn't what we pretend it to be, but a culture is poor now might not be poor for ever (see the Irish immegration to America.) I'm not sure how eliminating a large portion of a culture doesn't bother you.
Arguments that cultures deserve to be sterilized reduce to arguments that races ought to be sterilized. You might not care how systematic sterilization of poor people will affect cultures other than your own, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. History is rife with examples of people carrying out your "(ultimate) solution." It's called genocide. You just advocate slow genocide as opposed to fast genocide. The reason genocide is occasionally politically viable is because the people being eliminated aren't considered productive members of society by those in power.
Because you don't care about the race of poor people doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
(here is point 3)
I agree that a collapse in the welfare system would be disastrous, but your argue that your "(ultimate) solution" is an even more troubling problem. The reason sterilization is such a terrible thig is because it divides the population into first class and second class citizens. First class citizens who have purchased their status by their inherited wealth gain freedom. Poor people are left to die out.
Now if you'd care to address a couple of concise bullet points instead of repeating that you don't care about the consequences of your "(ultimate) solution."
You went ahead and singled out addiction as dependent on welfare. Really? Someone with a genetic predisposition to addiction isn't an alcoholic, and shouldn't be treated as one. And of course no addict could contribute to society, like say Edger Allen Poe or Ernest Hemingway. Should we have bred them out? Please name one single disorder that renders the afflicted totally and unable to work and still able to bear children.
One should never judge someone based on what group they belong to. Each individual (and their progeny) should be judged only on his own merits. Whenever a decision is based on solely on genetics it is wrong; it relies on the assumption that all those people are the same.
For your "solution" consider the programmer who gets laid off and has to draw unemployment. He stops at the clinic, gets his genome scanned (a condition of drawing unemployment) and is found to have a genetic predisposition for developing Alzheimer's. *snip We can't have that gene in the general population.
Look at the population on welfare - it is disproportionately non-white. Is that because non-white people are genetically disabled?
ABILITY TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON ABILITY TO WORK.
The reason ethnic minorities enters into the picture is because humanity has a long history of mistreating those different from the majority. When genetics and working status combine to determine breedability it is only a mater of time before Hispanicness or Arabness and so forth become genetic disorders (depending on where you live.) If an ethnic minority is unable to gain employment it does not mean that they should be removed from the gene pool.
Your right, I didn't pose any solutions, and I'm not a particularly a fan of the status quo. Any potential solution would take considerably more time and effort to even describe than I'm willing to put into a
But I did cover the Down syndrom problem.
Genetics determines physical characteristics. The nature of the brain in other animals- even chimps - are fundementally different from ours. Biology and behavior aren't inseperable, but behavior in a group with similar biology is not genetically predetermined.
I addressed this indirectly in the GP, with my comment about organic diseases.
I'm curious as to what genetic disorders would make someone totally dependent on a welfare system.
If a person is capable of finding a mate and engaging in the act of procreation they are almost certainly capable of engaging in menial labor.
What about the case where an ethnic minority is unable to support itself except on handouts because they are unable to find employment? Not that they couldn't do some work, but no one is willing to pay them for what they can do. Should they be banned from procreating? What is the difference between someone with Down's or a malformed leg who can do assembly line type stuff, but can't find employment and segregated ethnic population? Neither had any choice to be born as they were.
I'm not saying that everyone is equal in every regard; I'm just saying calling one genetic group "better" than another is dangerous.
The criteria you supplied, the ability to find work, depends on more than genetics. It depends on the supply of work, as well as the perceptions of those doing the hiring.
Height and weight are physical traits, the role of genetics in determining physical factors is pretty well established. Height and weight are a little bit trickier because they are influenced by the environment (primarily diet) but in the end genetics plays a large roll.
On the other hand intelligence is not a physical characteristic, and the role of genetics in behavioral characteristics is not, to my knowledge, established. So no, intelligence is not similar to physical characteristics. Of course, the water can be muddied by things like organic mental disorders, but that's another topic.
Intelligence and behavior are at the very least inseparable from environmental factors, and at the very most wholly formed by environmental factors. Note that they are cannot be wholly formed by genetics due to the fact that identical twins don't have identical intelligence, nor identical behavior.
solubalizing != degrading
The problem is that it is natural selection, not rational selection or ethical selection.
You run into serious ethical issues when you start to assign better/worse - or defective labels to genetic trats. Someone who is "normal" is no better, than someone with MS or Down's.
As far as evolution is concerned if you are able to find a mate there is no reason why you shouldn't procreate. When you start talking about better genes you imply that evolution has a goal or an endpoint, which it doesn't.
Evolution isn't an ethical beast, but attempting to control it based on our short-sighted values is unethical. Who knows what benefical trait will spring out of a genetic "defect?"
How you can call convincing people who were born with some kind of genetic disorder, which didn't prevent them from finding a mate, not to have children "better ethics" is beyond me.
I disagree that that was the point afak_ianal was trying to make, and also disagree that there is a disproportionately large number of hot dumb people.
First of all, I think that afak_ianal was trying to say that it seems to him that stupid people are having lots of babies - without regard to hotness. And well, I can't argue with that. However, I don't think that stupid people have a genetic predisposition to have stupid babies. I do think that the (sub)culture that failed to develop the mental facalties of the parents is likely to have the same effect on the children. I also don't think that stupid, at least in this case, is a classification of intelligence. The stupid couple might not put much stock in book lernin', but they might practice thier intelligence in a different way that has more benefit to them in their enviornment.
As far as the apperently large population of stupid but hot people I think it's an illusion. Hottness is generally a sign of a healthy hormonal system, I'd I've never seen anything that indicates that hormones and intelligence (or lack thereof) are in anyway linked. You and I both know that plain CompSci major might be smoking on the weekend when she puts on her make-up. It just so happens that the Art history major doing the walk of shame on Tuesday is wearing her make-up and black pants when the CompSci major is in class wearing her PJs. Add to that the fact that most technical people (whether they admit it or not) don't consider non-technical people "smart" and the fact that the education system in the US doesn't funnel women into technical fields and all the suden you have a whole lot of women, some of whom are hot, studing humanities who happen to have no class on Monday.
See my post in this thread about the dangers of Social-Darwinism
Also we won't be losing our pinky we will be growning a sixth finger.
Unless those having 100 kids belong to an isolated community and their genetic information is not disseminated among the larger population.
Those having 2.5 kids who go out and have kids with members of a large community are having a bigger influince than those having 15 (more realistic) but only breed with a small and shrinking community. See Amish for case in point.
Unless of course there is an Amish specification event, in which case we would have to have a wholly different (and interesting) discussion.
On a related note Social-Darwinism is something that is best regarded extremely cautiously, if not ignored all together. Based on thousands of years of civilization it doesn't seem that socially undesirable people have a particularly hard time procreating. People lacking intelligence fall squarely into that camp. Now we just have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if widespread use of contraceptives will change this. My thought is that it won't.
Back to intelligence and evolution, I am not an evolutionary biologist, but is seems unlikely that intelligence maps 1:1 with genetics. Even if it did intelligence is something that is very hard to quantify. The intelligence required to solve differential equations would not be a survival trait in Sub-Saharan Africa, while the intelligence required to find the best fishing spot is not a survival trait in the U.S.
Anytime you start talking about intelligence it is crucial to recognize the tremendous role that environment has on the individual. Even if I granted that IQ tests were able to measure intelligence, (I don't,) I could not argue that two equally intelligent people from different cultures would have the same score. Now try to define culture, and try to explain to me how the U.S., or any first world country, is a contiguous culture.
Wow, that got ranty, but in short intelligence is at best loosely tied to genetics, and arguments of intelligence and evolution, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead directly to eugenics and racism.
Eh even in the US if you "take out the cops who are trying to bring you in" it's not 2nd degree murder, IANAL and all that, but I'm reasonably sure that killling a police officer who has identified himself is always first degree murder, and will likely earn you a needle in the arm if you are in a state that practices capital punishment.
People may want to believe what they read, but most of us have the ability to distinguish between reputable, non-reputable and unknown sources.
To me the whole article reads: "Media discovers that blogged stories may not be impartial." Not that mainstream media has ever reprinted a press release as news...
Another question is who reads these pro-Wal-Mart blogs? If it's only people who are already pro-Wal-Mart there is no impact on reprinting a Wal-Mart statement. If I stumble across a random pro-Wal-mart blog I'm not going to pay much attention to it. Trust is something that is built. If I am unfamiliar with a news source I'm not going to take what it says on face value.
A good example is a couple of months ago the Christian Monitor came into the news with the unfortunate kidnapping of one of its journalists in Iraq. I had not previously been exposed the CM, saw the word Christian, and drew the conclusion that the reporter was putting herself in danger by evangelizing to radically militant Muslims (not that that would make her kidnapping right). I was wrong. I did some checking and what do you know the CM is a generally reputable news source, and in the future I will not fact check things I read from their newspaper, unless I am given a reason to suspect that I should.
That is really what this is about. The mainstream, established news sources are alternating being in love with and despising blogs. Since people will never be able to fact check everything they read only news sources people are familiar with get the benefit of the doubt. Very little audience will be taken away from the New York Times because Jim in Ypsilanti thinks Congressman X is taking bribes. The key is in learning that Jim should be ignored, but maybe we should look into it if Drudge says it. However, for some reason the mainstream media feels a need to comment on a disproportionately large number of blog stories because they don't understand the notion of credibility and feel as if blogs are competing for the same market as they are.
And thats not even counting the million that keep AOLs default UI...
Shouldn't the paranthetical (principle of parsimony) be a more common term than what it is describing? If I didn't know what Ockham's Razor was I'd be more confused, not less by parsimony...
But I guess while you're patronizing you might as well do it up right.
Did anyone else spend half the article trying to guess what CE stands for?
(I came to the conclusion, eventually, that it is Consumer Electronics - am I right?)
Way to many people in this discussion just think that another company can come along and steal apples buisness if they mimic apple's buisness. This is simply not true. Because apple did it first it is now much harder to get into that market. Barrier to entry and gigantic market shares being what they are any new competitor is a lost cause unless they have something ttruely unique - and I think the RIAA aren't going to let anything unique happen in the digitial music market.
Now as to whether Apple's near monopoly is a positive result of a free market (they got their first - they deserve the profit) or a negative result of a regulated industy (copyright and the RIAA) and commercial nepotism is left as an exercise to the reader.
Yeah, I asked some of the same questions, but I was under the impression that asking what is inside a black hole is eqivalent to asking what happens outside the universe, i.e. totally irrelevent to anything that happens inside.
It is interesting to think about black hole intyeriors yes (BTW how can something with zero volume have an interior?), but is it useful? It may be defeatest to say no, but then again it may be the truth...
On the otherhand, I believe that in the last couple of years string theory made some advance that indicated that information may be preserved inside a black hole. What that advance was I was totally unable to wrap my brain around, but I think it caused Stephen Hawking to loose a bet.
So if information is preserved in a black hole what happens inside may be relevent after all.
I thought the most common fatality associated with deceleration was your brain coming to a full stop within your skull. I didn't do work on this myself but I seem to remember that your torso can sustain substantially higher g forces than your skull.
I could be way off base but I seem to remember that cranial decelerations were survivable up to ~50g, and torso decelerations survivable up to ~150g.
If the parent or anyone else is familiar with the field please speak up, the graphic description has piqued my interest...
I think the biggest potential problem is not that Microsoft offers a severly crippled version of its OS, but that it could leverage its monopoly position to force the likes of Dell to intall only that version.
If that happens then Dell pays for Windows Vista crap edition, passes that cost along to the consumer, and then the consumer has to pay again for a different version that meets their needs.
Ideally it would be fine if Microsoft offered 15 different versions. If OEM A sold boxes with crap edition word would get around that that those boxes are unusable. Consumers would then buy OEM B's computers with a more usable OS.
However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if MS made it infeasable for any OEM to put a better than basic package on their machines.