/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

>>3572680

Nothing impressive.

It does point out the fact that if you abort all black babies crime will go down.

Why don't you just read it? Reading keeps you limber and helps your vocabulary. It's not a big book. Worst thing you'll do is lose a couple of days to a week of time. Turn off the TV, video games, 4chan and read it. If there's something you don't understand, look it up online. You might learn something.

It is a really short book so I finished within a day. It was entertaining to say the least

>>3572680

Its an interesting read though its hardly a textbook. Its the economics equivalent of pop-science in that, just like a physics class wouldnt set a Michio Kaku book on its text-list, an eocnomics class wouldnt set this. There isnt anything in the way of economic theory or anything...

>>3572680

It's a so-so book, with a few funny points. I recommend reading it and then reading John R. Lott Jr's response, Freedomnomics, just for diversity.

Wouldn't recommend it over a textbook, but it's still fun to read.

Actually, if you abort all black babies you will reduce the world's population by about 2 billion, but that won't necessarily lead to a reduced crime rate.

Correlation is not causation.

i read it while i was sick with diarrhea so it was pretty good.

>>3572881

> eliminate those that commit crimes
> crime wont go down

Democrats actually believe this.

Interesting read, but it isn't a textbook and shouldn't be treated as such. As such, I absolutely wouldn't recommend it over one, but I'd recommend it for a good read, especially for someone interested in economics and even just unconventional thinking.

>>3572881

One of the main points, of the movie at least, is that the legalization of abortion has already caused a huge drop in violent crime.

>>3572901

>kill all criminals
>believe more new criminals won't take their place

mfw idiot capitalists believe that a market, concentrating massive amounts of wealth in the hands of a few, will automatically get rid of all crime because they say so

>>3573007

>mfw liberal exaggeration interprets crime going down as elimination of all crime
>mfw liberal extremists don't understand statistical analysis

>>3572881

>Actually, if you abort all black babies you will reduce the world's population by about 2 billion, but that won't necessarily lead to a reduced crime rate

Implying correlation is not enough to achieve the effect of reduced crime.

Killing all humans would eliminate crime completely. No humans means no crime. You're all idiots for not arriving at this conclusion btw.

>MFW people confuse aborting black children with aborting children in low income areas, which only happen to be more densely populated by black people.

>>3573055

>implying raccoons would not steal my trash

Also still criminals via bird law

>>3573035
>>3572700

implies facts not in evidence.

>>3573079
in the US, in sheer numbers, there are more poor white people than poor black people

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

just sayin

>>3573118

Really? Well I'll be damned.

That would mean that you'd get a better benefit from aborting white babies in general than you would aborting black babies in general.

Of course this does not change the fact that you optimize by aborting the children in low income families.

>>3573131
>optimize by eliminating all poors

This is the essential logical failure of eugenics. We would then eliminate all the future Tammy Wynettes, Ray Charleses, George Jones, et al.

Biodiversity is critical for human success, whether cultural or scientific, but it's elements are human beings, separate and individual, with all their faults and from whatever socioeconomic niches.

I personally don't know everything, but I do know that I don't know enough to start wiping out entire "lower" social niches because Liberty (for instance) thinks it's a grand idea.

(And I'm not even a Democrat)

>>3573243

Correct, all of the people you mentioned would have had to get real jobs if there were no ignorant poor people to exploit with shitty pop music.

>>3573243

Well, first I did make a mistake when writing that, I meant to say 'but neither is as optimal as aborting babies from low income families'

Also, you clearly don't know what eugenics is. In eugenics you're targeting certain genetic features (race, IQ, etc.). Eliminating people by socioeconomic class is independent of the gene pool, and doesn't reduce the biodiversity of the gene pool.

However it doesn't mean that all poor people aborting their babies is the answer.

The point of this exercise is to show that responsible birthing practices are necessary (including not having children when you can not properly support them)

>>3573243
no, the essential logical failure is because it is politicized nonsense when we should be focussing on genetics

>Biodiversity is critical for human success
lol wat

>>3573300


He is right that biodiversity is critical for something in humans, but it is human survival in the chance that we can not keep up with environmental effects and not success in general.