/sci/ - Science & Math

Race realism, to an extent. I generally figure nature over nurture, and that is very controversial here in Sweden.

Also this thread can very, very quickly turn into /pol/.

>>6794699
>Also this thread can very, very quickly turn into /pol/

It already has

>>6794699
me too

i believe, to an extent, blacks are niggers and crackers and chinks are at the top.

hispanics are in between.

i generally figure nature over nurture

Also this thread can very, very quickly turn into /po/.

Subjective experience doesn't exist.

>>6794717
Well, when I say race realism I'm saying that I believe Africans have a lower IQ because of their genetics, rather than from being mistreated, or malnutrition, etc.

Do you believe Afro-Americans tend to perform better in sports because of some social reason?

Finally, race realism generally doesn't talk about race superiority.

>>6794719
nah, i believe genes are why blks are more athletic

i agree last sentence
evolution=survive of most adaptable

>>6794730
i think genes =75%
nurture=25%

>>6794719
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/11/25/when-jews-dominated-professional-basketball/

>>6794730
>evolution=survive of most adaptable
Well no, that's natural selection, although a better description would be survival of the *adapted*. Evolution encompasses all genetic change in a population. Natural selection is only one kind of change.

AI realism. I don't see a superintelligent AI ever becoming a thing and even basic mammalian levels of intelligence are more than a long ways off.

Anything that has no value doesn't have any value.

>>6794749
is that just your feeling or do you have some fact to back it up? because that seems entirely possible, given what we currently know.

I believe that quantum computing can not be used to solve problems outside P with polynomial effort, and that NP is outside P.

>>6794767
I have the empirical fact that we've never seen a being of intellect greater than the smartest human. I don't doubt that the limits of what's physically possible probably extend beyond that, but to think that intelligence is simply a quality which can keep going and going is like saying a being of Superman-level strength is possible because a gorilla is stronger than a mouse.

Why I don't think humans will implement even a basic mammalian brain is another story, but I'd like to hear what knowledge we currently posses leads you to believe these things are entirely possible.

>>6794774
That's hardly controversial. Most mathematicians would agree.

>>6794779
Whatever nature can do with time, man can do with intelligence.

>>6794779
Whatever nature can do with time, man can do with design.

>>6794779
Our intelligence is a function of our brain. Our brain is a very complicated object, but it is a finite object. Our knowledge about physical limits of computation goes far beyond the processes that take place in our brain.

We can get more efficient than this.

>>6794774
I believe that probability manipulators are possible, which can make any NP problem as easy to solve as checking the answer once.

>>6794689
racial theories I'm a white supremacist a Nordicist and a Christian Identityist

>>6794689
that molecular nanotechnology is probably possible. We'll show those chemists, WE'LL SHOW THEM ALL. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>6794719
>generally doesn't talk about race superiority
>"Africans have a lower IQ because of their genetics"

>>6794801
Super edgy bro.

>>6794689
I find it hard to believe that the people around you are sentient beings and just as conscious as you, if not more.

>>6794824
That could still be true though.

It could be a statistical truth. Don't make facts illegal.

>>6794790
Optimism from ignorance, no doubt.

>>6794793
A bit premature considering we don't fully understand the processes that take place in our brain. Also emulation is a long way off of understanding, and it's difficult to improve on a design without first understanding it.

Psychology and sociology are soft sciences and soft sciences are sciences, and important ones at that.

IQ is an awful measure of intelligence, or at the very least incomplete.

America is going to be more and more fucked if we don't revamp public education and public science departments/projects.

/o/ is a pathetically unscientific place and the desperately emotional attitudes from people harking on about their supposed rugged objectivity makes me cringe my balls off.

Wankel rotary internal combustion engine is an incredible design.

Electric cars will change the world.

Race and gender are social constructs, logically disconnected from the biology of phenotypes and chromosomes.

The reality of global warming is fucking grim.

Almost all conspiracy theories are bullshit.

>>6794689
>believe in
only Medieval benightedfags "believe in" their stupid ideas

>>6795374
>Psychology and sociology are soft sciences and soft sciences are sciences, and important ones at that.

I feel like moderate/reasonable voices are squeezed out of this debate. On one side you have frothing academics arguing that the statistical analysis of sociology makes it a science. On the other side you have neckbeards and /pol/ types saying it's all based on feelings.

I think that sociology is valid and important; I just don't think it's a science. Psychology, sociology, political science, etc. are basically just statistics applied to philosophy. Not being a science doesn't make them less valid or important, it's just a categorical thing.

It reminds me of the old debate about whether mix DJs are musicians. On one side you'd have guitar types say its just playing other people's music and on the other side you'd have DJs claiming to be virtuosos. Mix DJs aren't musicians but they are still artists; not calling them musicians doesn't devalue them in any way, it's just categorically correct.

>>6794719
>I'm saying that I believe Africans have a lower IQ because of their genetics, rather than from being mistreated, or malnutrition, etc.

People who harbor racist opinions and attitudes have lower IQs as well.

>>6795382
Definition (belief in):
An individual "believes in" X if and only if the individual claims that X is true.
You have a "belief" if you claim that something is true.

>>6795374
>Wankel rotary internal combustion engine is an incredible design.

For racing engines they are utterly superior to piston engines.

For road cars they are commodities at best.

1. Marx basically nailed it when he described how capitalism functions and its social consequences.

2. Science is often misapplied to areas where science has nothing to say.

3. Human organization in the 21st century is severely lacking, cruel and illogical. We need a revolutionary movement to rebirth a less-stupid society that plays to human strengths rather than human weakness. We should seek careers/vocations toward these ends, and resist the temptation to be placid, materially pampered and socially "normal."

4. Scientists and mathematicians need to make a more rigorous and serious analysis of how their profession impacts the world, and should refuse to participate in activities which are evil, particularly the defense industry.

5. God might exist, and if he does, he probably takes an active interest in human affairs.

>>6794689
>believe
>>>/x/

>>6795404
They work fine in everyday use if you don't thrash them. I owned an Rx-7 for many years and took care of it religiously and never had any significant problems.

Intelligent design and an eternal being

>>6795406
>1. Marx basically nailed it when he described how capitalism functions and its social consequences.

I have strong capitalistic tendencies and I agree. Profit is exploitation and there is no way getting around that. It's insane how many so-called capitalists are in complete denial of this. When something is flawed but still the best option, people start denying the flaws ever existing.

A capitalistic economy with built-in regulations and taxes and welfare is the only successful system for a society that our species has ever devised.

>>6795408

The vast majority of *beliefs* one operates with in the world are not scientific in nature. This is true even of the most ardent scientist.

>>6795420

You're actually supposed to thrash wankels because carbon build-up kills them, and the ol' Italian tune-up blows out carbon deposits.

The reason RX-8s are considered unreliable is because people hear about their supposed unreliability, baby them, and kill them from babying them.

>>6795422

Interesting. So on what basis is your support of capitalism structured? That it is not perfect but still the best postulated/practiced?

>>6795374
>/o/ is a pathetically unscientific place and the desperately emotional attitudes from people harking on about their supposed rugged objectivity makes me cringe my balls off.

Same. The transparency and obliviousness of people saying they have no beliefs and that their logic is completely unclouded by emotion is mind-numbing. They are usually the complete opposite. Something something Dunning-Krugar.

>>6795428
every single attempt at abolishing it has had one of two outcomes (sometimes both)

1) misery and death for the population
2) eventual return to capitalism

we saw 1) in china in the 20th century, we're seeing 2) in china today.

>>6795428
>That it is not perfect but still the best postulated/practiced?

Essentially, yes. To the point where it's weird to me that people suspect any system to be essentially perfect. I don't like labels but I'm essentially liberal, my friends mostly have socialist leanings, and it's weird because I respect/acknowledge Marx to the same extent that they do, I just don't agree with his solutions. I love co-ops though, and it's a shame that America's red scare mentality keeps them from being popular here.

>So on what basis is your support of capitalism structured?

What it has going for it that other systems don't is acknowledging and utilizing people's true driving force: self-interest. Every successful system ever has worked by funnelling self-interest, and I feel like non-capitalistic systems have too many kinks where the citizens are supposed to do something out of the kindness of their hearts in order for the system to work.

I also think that there is an optimal curve of income inequality that America is far past, but that many European and Asian countries sit comfortably in.

>>6795437

You could say the same about socialism.

All successful economies are hybrids.

>>6794689

pacifism is naive, and adhering to it does nothing for a nation but set it up for being subjugated by another nation.

globalist movements (most prominently EU) are doomed to fail and severely harm the people they're toying around with

african blacks and australian aborigines are untermenschen

frantically denying man-made climate change (claiming to KNOW that it's not happening) is about as retarded as fanatically advocating it (claiming to KNOW that it's happening)

any public funding for the social 'sciences' is a waste of taxpayer money and should cease immediately

>>6795443
having a welfare system at all is not socialism.
socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. that is almost completely absent from any successful economy today.

God

>>6795439

Ah, a "moderate capitalist" I see!

My general beef with this outlook is that it's cowardly and unimaginative. It sees the injustice systemic to capitalism and views them as unsolvable. Methinks this is just a bit of sophistry to allow one to keep their day job and avoid difficult questions/demanding answers.

I share your skepticism of the utopic, but I also think this is pretty insubstantial. Whatever your view on utopia, we all believe that a "best possible" society exists. Simply swap "utopia" for "best possible" and we're back to a real conversation that doesn't get bothered by abstract musings on human history.

> I feel like non-capitalistic systems have too many kinks where the citizens are supposed to do something out of the kindness of their hearts in order for the system to work.

"We have all known the long loneliness and we have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes with community."

Trying to create loving community in a 20th-century state sized context is a doomed effort. Human love knows few boundaries, but one of them is undoubtedly geographic distance and number of faces.

If we wish to see more actions motivated by non-self-interest, then we must form a society (or rather, societies) that is fertile ground for love.

>>6795437

Not all future anti-capitalist revolutions must fit the mold of 20th century communism. On the contrary, anyone serious about creating a world for the better should be a student of that communism, well versed in its shortcomings and with a few ideas on how to amend them.

>>6795452
>the injustice systemic to capitalism

every single attempt at overcoming it has resulted in similar injustice though, only difference being that now it's the self-proclaimed communists who sit at the top and exploit the population.

power corrupts. centralizing power (which is necessary to even come close to overthrowing the established capitalist order) is pretty much guaranteed to result in a corrupt elite exploiting their subjects.

it's the way things are. for all of recorded history, some have always come out on top while others failed on the way.

>>6795461

>every single attempt at overcoming it has resulted in similar injustice though, only difference being that now it's the self-proclaimed communists who sit at the top and exploit the population

Totally agree. In a Marxist analysis, the 20th century Communist governments simply replaced the capitalist class.

>for all of recorded history

There are a few exceptions which pop up here and there in history (Paris Commune for example). But for pre-historical humans (or more precisely, pre-urban humans) there was no power relationship which could be classified as exploitative.

Sure, you might have an older member who performs leadership functions, but his role in production would have been much the same.

We should seek to form a new society that has the best of both worlds: the labor efficiency, medical technology and planning efficiency of the capitalist with the micro-community, freedom and equality of the pre-capitalist.

>>6795452
>It sees the injustice systemic to capitalism and views them as unsolvable.

Actually the opposite. I think capitalism solves them to an extent never seen with anything else.

I also don't see it as unsolvable. Better central planning, revamping of welfare and education, etc. could pretty much pick-up the slack with the relatively minor remaining injustices in the West.

I think the average/typical person is pretty smart.

>>6795469
enforcing social change of that magnitude is doomed to fail horribly. establishing a system that fundamentally infringes on the civil liberties of its subjects will always generate massive resistance.

people accept capitalism because it's just an extension of the natural order of things - everybody is free to produce and trade as he sees fit, and its everybodys own responsibility to make sure he gets what he wants in return for his goods or services.

fucking with this elemental freedom will rile people up against you, specifically those you do not want to be your enemies - productive citizens with lots of ambition and creativity - because your ideology would strip them of the fruits of their labor and force them down to the level of a moronic pleb.

>>6795397

[citation needed]

>>6795476

I stated "systemic" to try and be clear on this. Systemic flaws are those which are built into the structure itself. Exploitation (in the Marxian sense) is impossible to remove from capitalism, although the secondary effects of it (dire poverty, social unrest etc.) can be somewhat ameliorated by secondary augmentations (welfare, elections)..

At the end of the day, capitalism generates problems. If it tries to generate solutions to these, it is (at best) destroying with one hand what it builds with the other.

>>6795481

>enforcing social change of that magnitude is doomed to fail horribly.

I agree, and I see it as a serious contradiction if violence is used in the name of decreasing violence.

So is our problem here not one of methodology rather than goal?

It is well and fitting that one should be opposed to the implementation of 20th century communism after reading history. But it is another thing entirely to oppose the goals of 20th century communism. Such opposition would have to come from philosophical considerations, not from history (since it was not the case that the goals were realized).

One can certainly argue that the goals cannot be realized, but to do this in an intellectually convincing manner would require substantially more thought and argument than simply pointing at history; especially since history reveals that novelty develops constantly throughout history.

>>6795482
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

>>6795446
Socialism is also defined as worker ownership of the means of production. In other words, companies are ran as democracies instead of autocracies/oligarchies.

>>6795490
>But it is another thing entirely to oppose the goals of 20th century communism.

as i see it, these goals are implementing a system of injustice that punishes the productive for being productive by taking away what they earn and redistributing it to those who did not earn it.

from the self-centered viewpoint of a prole with no ambition this of course sounds appealing, but to everybody with the drive to achieve more in life, this is a slap in the face.

>>6795494
in other words, take away rightfully earned property from its owners and arbitrarily redistribute it to people you deem worthy?

>>6795499
Socialists would argue the wealth generated by workers is unfairly redistributed to the owners.

>>6795496
Have you read Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century?

>>6795501
if workers deem the contract they signed unfair, they shouldn't have signed it in the first place.
that's the thing about capitalism - you're always free to leave and try making it on your own. think you can do better than what your boss pays you? go freelance, start your own business, whatever.

in the 21st century there is zero excuse for signing a work contract you deem unfair.

>>6795496

Ambition needn't be measured in dollars. In fact, it ought not as well.

Worldly pursuits for endless wealth and comfort are delusional.

To aspire to grow a nice crop or cook a good meal is all good. Money as means to do good is good. Money as ends is madness.

>>6795504
>in the 21st century there is zero excuse for signing a work contract you deem unfair.
And what do you do when they are all unfair?

Cuz there's not a real range of variety, at least here in the states. Some nasty bullshit is pretty much standard fair for all employment, and some fields share bullshit universally - such as working for the DOD and forfeiting the right to litigation.

>>6795504
Workers don't have many options. Especially when they're being outsourced while owners make passive recurring income simply by holding securities.

If there really were zero excuse in the 21st century why has real median income stagnated and the middle class eroded?

Read Piketty's book.

>>6795494
>>6795501

nobody prevents you from setting up your own company that operates on a socialist business model by giving out shares to workers or whatever.

the problem i have with this whole thing is that you all want to take away existing property from its rightful owner. you don't want to compete against capitalist businesses because of course you know that your model of business would immediately fail if subjected to competition, so instead of competition you seek a state-enforced monopoly for your business model.

that's the key difference - capitalism has no problem with letting people form their own socialist communities within the capitalist system. socialism on the other hand doesn't allow capitalist businesses to operate within it.

>>6795485
>secondary effects of it (dire poverty, social unrest etc.) can be somewhat ameliorated by secondary augmentations
>At the end of the day, capitalism generates problems. If it tries to generate solutions to these, it is (at best) destroying with one hand what it builds with the other.

It seems we are in agreement.

But my question goes back to my original point - what is better?

>>6794689

The big bounce occurs and it's a completely deterministic system. I've been going on 4chan for eons throughout my lives. I always read and make the same posts... over and over...

Your passion is your greatest possession.

I would say freedom but that really goes in hand with your passion. Accepting anything less than what you want to do is foolish.

Humanity will not be reduced to vagrancy by anyone taking this stance.

Global warming is a reason to be concerned. So why in the hell if youre passionate about finding answers, would you let the govt hijack issues like this?

Is everyone truly comfortable being born and dying in the thralls of an empire and accepting a 9-5 life with a shitty retirement?

Am i the only one who will not accept not exploring our universe?

Ill do whatever it takes to survive. Im not afraid of work. Im 21 have a job that pays under the table. So im not advocating being a bum or anarchy. Although anarchy i would advocate as a last resort.

Fuck forms and signatures.

I just want to find people who can help make my ideas a reality. Honestly not interested in money, its holding us back.

I want badass spacecraft and suits. I want people to hear my ideas about everything. If i have a story idea, please, by all means use my idea. Make money off it if you want.

I just want to see humanity reach new heights and challenges. I deram big, free. I will fight work to accomplish what i want. If necessary die for it. But i will accept nothibg less than living free and passionately.

>>6795505
see? you're already imposing your own moral values on others (money is bad! seeking profit is delusional!)

you think you know what's best for other people instead of letting them decide what they want by themselves.

>And what do you do when they are all unfair?
go freelance, start your own business and do it better, get an education so you don't have to flip burgers for the rest of your life, whatever. your choice.

>Workers don't have many options
with access to the internet you have all the options in the world

>>6795509
>you don't want to compete against capitalist businesses because of course you know that your model of business would immediately fail if subjected to competition

Wrong as shit. There are multi-billion dollar co-ops.

>>6795499
It could happen that the means of production are peaceably transferred to workers over a long period of time, though voluntary exchange. In that case, there would be no "socialist revolution", yet, entirely through free markets, socialism is achieved.
Or perhaps long ago some primitive society adopted the tradition of workers owning the means of production before anyone really owned any means of production at all, and without abandoning that tradition, became a free market society.

Neither of these has happened, but do you understand that socialism and free markets are not contradictory, or even opposed?

Some would go as far to say that communism was the original manifestation of the "laissez-faire" ideology.

>>6795517
name em

>>6795509
I'm not arguing for appropriation, but rather a push for more democratically owned companies. In Germany it's law that labor union leaders serve on the board of directors, allowing workers to have better representation. I'm sure there are many other policies that can be implemented to encourage more cooperatives.

As far as the problem of inequality Piketty advocates a wealth tax to mitigate the problem of wealth concentration and redistribute those revenues towards the poor to stimulate demand.

>>6795519
Not that guy but Mondragon is a very famous one.

>>6795518
>It could happen that the means of production are peaceably transferred to workers over a long period of time, though voluntary exchange. In that case, there would be no "socialist revolution", yet, entirely through free markets, socialism is achieved.

if this happens i'll gladly embrace socialism, swing the red flag from my roof and praise marx on a daily basis

>>6795521
>the problem of wealth concentration

aka "the problem of people being more successfull than other people"

>>6795526
Wealth concentration and inequality poses significant threats to democracy and economic mobility. More unequal societies are also correlated with a host of social maladies like lower trust, more violence, etc.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/inequality-income-social-problems-full.pdf

>>6795516

Having moral values does not necessarily imply imposing such values on others.

My belief that material pursuits do not bring lasting happiness is something I feel I can convey in word and deed, without recourse to violence.

Also you're arguing with \geq 2 people in this thread.

>>6795529
>leftist political website as source
kek
it's like a polack posting a stormfront link as evidence for the jewish conspiracy

>>6795533
That's the poisoning the well fallacy.

Feel free to check that paper's 7 pages of references for distortion.

>>6794689
Current GMOs pose absolutely no danger to human health based on the methods by which they are made.

>>6795540
That's not that controversial. Especially here.

The Natural numbers should be seen as a circle that starts where we want and ends at our physical capabilities (which are limited by space and time). It would be a lot easier to solve the twin prime conjecture and other stuff.
One could show that cardinality is really just the spawning subcircles on the natural number circle.
Infinity would make way more sense because it would be "going around the circle".

But there is no Chance anyone will realize or accept this sooner or later because people WANT to believe in infinity just like they want to believe in god.

How we imagine infinity is why we are stuck in math with wo many things.

it is better to lel than lol

>>6795542
It's even less controversial on Reddit

>>6795019
Hardly. Living things are just emergently ordered machines created from a random process. There's no reason to believe that they are somehow too special to be copied and designed by humans. It's a matter of time, not skill.

>>6795576

I think most of us start out with some healthy skepticism about infinity.

Once you move away from the paradigm of mathematics as a modeling system, the idea of infinity becomes acceptable and interesting.

>>6795612
But its an illusion, just because you cant see the end of something doesnt mean an end doesnt exist.

No one can ever percieve infinity itself because we are finite beings. So we have to assume it exists but I can also assume the universe was created by a spaghetti monster and base my math on this.

>>6795637
Forgot pic

>>6795540
I agree partly with this
I believe that the GMO food itself is fine

What I heavily dislike, is the companies behind them, say, Monsanto.

In my country, they pressured the Govt. to illegalize natural seeds, forcing farmers to buy their specially engineered seeds, some which are infertile (meaning just one yield), and some are not infertile but stockpiling on produced seeds is illegal (the seeds from a yield have to be returned to Monsanto, or be paid for).

Basically, it is now illegal in this shitty South American country to use natural seeds for intents of producing and selling.

If its for self sustainment, you can use natural seeds but are limited to 1 hectare (NOTHING!) and there have been cases of Monsanto (or similar companies) suing farmers because of illegally using their seeds in their personal plantations, and these seeds can get there unintentionally, say, because of wind, insects, animals, whatever.

>>6795667
>pressured the Govt. to illegalize natural seeds
Why is your parliament not in flames yet?

>>6795681
I believe in psychics.

>>6795397
That is basically irrelevant.
As a counterexample:
The Nazi German society almost certainly had one of the highest IQs in the world at the time. Certainly higher than most of the places they captured. If you think that validates Nazism, you are not an intellectually serious person.

A non-religious God.

Race is genetic. Similar to dog breeds.
Climate change is not the end of the world. Enough exaggeration has been dished out by Leftists that they should not even expect to be treated seriously anymore, despite the fact that there is truth behind climate change.
Genetic engineering worries me greatly. I believe genes play a very large part in who we are, and I accept the natural inequalities that genes bring as just being a part of life, but the inequality we face when certain segments of the population have access to gene-altering perfecting techniques is unnatural and worrisome to me.


>>6795529
Threats to democracy come from corrupt state workers.
And of course economic mobility might go down with wealth inequality, because the wealth ladder is vastly larger. More importantly, the thing that most lowers economic mobility is the imposition of hefty regulations that protect monopolies. It is no surprise that the richest men who hae ever lived, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Bill Gates etc. became vastly rich ( often from poor backgrounds) in the freest market economy.

> More unequal societies are also correlated with a host of social maladies like lower trust, more violence, etc.

This just sounds like blackmail to me. "Give me your money or else I'll rob you and despise you".

>>6795637

If you're seriously interested in this topic, have a go at mathematical philosophy.

One's opinion of infinity is usually a consequence of how they perceive mathematics.

I'm closer to a formalist. Mathematical structures have whatever rules we give them, and if we say N doesn't end, it doesn't end.

>>6795690
I want to believe in this too.
I mean, there being a higher order of consciousness or awareness or whatever, I don't care if its not even aware of us.

As a child I struggled a lot when thinking of God, I was barely 5~6 years old, and from a very Catholic family, I was very confused because as the teachings in my family went, it was like 'At the beginning God created everything' and I was like 'What created God?' and I was told 'It has always existed' and it was a very difficult thing for me to fathom, how could something have 'always existed'.

Then my Catholic School (A kinda cool one), tried to reconcile the Theory of The Big Bang with the Catholic explanation of everything (Something very odd for a Catholic School). Then they taught us what the Big Bang was about (and tried putting God along it) and that the seven days were symbolical for the formation of everything (Light, Planets, Water, Animals, Humans) but that it was the will of God and that before the Big Bang only God existed, and before it Time and Space appeared. (They even acknowledge evolution! But again, as God's will. They see the New Testament as kinda facts (xept for Apocalypse), and the Old Testament as fables that tell the evolution of the world and Mankind).

(Jesuits manage the school, the only kind of Catholics I find tolerable, they don't care if other people don't follow their religion, they don't tell people how should they live their sexuality, they acknowledge a lot of scientific stuff, I don't follow any religion now but I really like Jesuits).

Then I was confused again, how could've God existed before the Big Bang, where there wasn't nor Time or Space? How could it have made 'decisions' or whatever (or any process that causes a change) without Time, and how could it have 'been' something without Space.

>>6795700
Then I got obsessed with the idea of the impossibility of Time being infinite towards the past (thinking, if Time was infinite towards the past, then how could THIS very point have been reached) (and even if there 'wasn't' Time before the Big Bang, how could 'God' exist without Time nor Space), and what would be the ultimate fate of the Universe with really huge amounts of time towards the future (Again, thinking that it may not grow to Infinity, but indefinitely towards a really big number).

I started reading a lot of shit on the Internet (I was around 9 years old when the mainstream Internet got to my country, around 2001) about theories about the 'ultimate fate of the universe', be it the Big Rip, Heat Death, whatever, and I got really depressed, because I was raised believing that no matter if we die (and if there's no afterlife or whatever), people and animals would continue to be born, stars would continue to be formed, it would go on indefinitely, and then I got all that info regarding how all this can't go on forever, how some day the Sun will fade away, then the Galaxy, then Black Holes, then all there will be is Radiation (of course, I didn't understand jack shit about how these processes happen, specially being still a kid, but I had a strong laymen grasp of what all of it meant).

My childhood was a kinda traumatic one, my family was full of love and a very rich one, but I struggled mentally a lot with obsessive thoughts regarding the concepts of time, space, infinity, the origin of the universe, and ultimately, its death.

I wasn't even afraid of my own death, I didn't care if there was a heaven or not, but what really got me hard was the realization that the universe was some day going to 'die'.

>>6795686
I think you missed the point.

Axiom of choice validity.

>>6795700

See: Duns Scotus for a certified theological argument of the logical necessity of God

Don't forget that it was a Belgian priest who first put forward the idea of the Big Bang.

Religion is ultimately not arrived at via rationality. It is also not arrived at via non-rationality.

>>6795701
Ultimately it comes down to me hoping that even if this universe dies, there's some mechanism that will continue on creating universes indefinitely, be it a god or not.

>>6795667
Where are you getting this information from? There are no sterile GMO seeds on the market anywhere.

>Basically, it is now illegal in this shitty South American country to use natural seeds for intents of producing and selling.
Bullshit. What country are you from?

>>6795708
Colombia

The shit we get because the Govt was desperate for getting a Free Trade Agreement signed with the US.

We got very buttblasted, legislation on making illegal to use natural seeds for commercial purposes, having to buy the seeds directly from the govt (whom Monsanto provides), farmers getting lawsuits because of Monsanto seeds getting to their plantations (and the Govt constantly checking on that) (The most ridiculous case being 10 tons of Rice Seeds that were found and discarded by the police because of non-compliance) (And ongoing lawsuits because people were keeping from themselves the seeds produced by the engineered yields)

We also fast-tracked some laws regarding copyright and public domain (basically the US imposed on us stuff worse than SOPA and almost doubled the time to get to public domain)

We also had to let some US companies in to do genetic research on some plants and fauna (and them getting to keep the intellectual rights over the sequenced genomes of some shit that they can use for medications)

We also approved some tax cuts to US-based mining companies and letting them into special places that were 'reserves' before (they are fucking mining in moors and now they want to introduce Fracking here).

http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4779-colombia-farmers-uprising-puts-the-spotlight-on-seeds
(there's a partial suspension of the law regarding the seeds but the worst aspects of it are still fully enforced in some regions because corruption)
https://nacla.org/blog/2013/12/13/certified-seeds-different-wars-same-reasons

There was a slow progress on the laws that the US wanted us to pass before considering signing the FTA because strong opposition and lots of protests from the farmers, but then Obama was coming to some event in the Capital, and the President saw that as an opportunity to fast-track all the laws in a bundle almost as an 'executive mandate' just to have it ready for Obama's arribal

>>6795708
Yes, there are, this is something Monsanto has been doing all over the world, and it's why farmers are setting themselves on fire in protest in India, and constantly suing the shit out of Monsanto in the US - and somehow losing.

>>6795716
>We got very buttblasted, legislation on making illegal to use natural seeds for commercial purposes
The only thing I can find is that the government started regulating herbs and flowers used in "natural medicine." It hardly has anything to do with GMO.

>Yes, there are, this is something Monsanto has been doing all over the world
Wrong, dumbass. Try getting your information from somewhere other than NaturalNews.com. No one is selling sterile GMO seeds. Prove it or shut the fuck up.

>>6795727
>We got very buttblasted, legislation on making illegal to use natural seeds for commercial purposes
The only thing I can find is that the government started regulating herbs and flowers used in "natural medicine." It hardly has anything to do with GMO.

>>6795725
>Yes, there are, this is something Monsanto has been doing all over the world
Wrong, dumbass. Try getting your information from somewhere other than NaturalNews.com. No one is selling sterile GMO seeds. Prove it or shut the fuck up.

>>6795729
Replying to >>6795716

>>6795716
Law 970 (The one about the seeds) introduced stuff that caused this:

>Under the FTA signed with Washington, as well as that signed with Brussels, Bogotá (the capital) is required to provide legal monopoly rights over seeds sold by US and European corporations as an incentive for them to invest in Colombia. Farmers who are caught selling farm-saved seeds of such varieties, or simply indigenous seeds which have not been formally registered, could face fines or even jail time.

For registering, no local seeds have passed the 'standards'.


And correction, it wasn't 10, it was 70 tons of Rice Seeds destroyed in just one day, and not by the usual police, but by fucking RIOT SQUADS (nowadays they use riot squads for enforcing some laws, such as unregistered seed destroying, evicting indigenous people from their mountains or fields because a mining operation will be opened there, etc).

>>6795679
Well there was a fucking country wide strike that lasted several months, and resulted in scarcity of a lot of fruits and vegetables and basically any kind of food, it resulted in a lot of violence (but the middle and upper class people don't care since the farmers and poor people live outside the main cities, and the states with the worse situation are located at least 600km from the important cities) (Colombia is basically a country with 4 or 5 cities that are very developed, and LOTS of towns very far away that are poor as hell and are almost 70% of the population).

In the end the Govt made some arrangement to stop the strikes, like 80 'promises', and went on fulfilling some, but when the farmers thought that it was done and dissipated, the Govt stopped fulfilling the promises, and took advantage of the confusion to station permanently some Riot Squads in critical zones to prevent a strike of such magnitude from happening again.

>>6795732
>The Colombian government has just announced that it is suspending Resolution 970, which was the subject of massive public outcry in recent weeks thanks to the huge peasant mobilisation launched on 19 August.

>>6795729
That was before the FTA. With the FTA came regulating ALL kind of seeds and plantations, we've felt the effects, we've felt the decrease in production because of all the farmers going out of business and the country wide strikes where a lot of people have died at both the farmers side and the police side.

This is not happening because of herbs and flower regulations...

Monsanto has a legal monopoly on seeds here.

>>6795727
>>6795729
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monsanto+one-shot+sterile+seeds#

Google it, shill. You're too much of a Monsanto fanboi, so any source I give is gonna be called bias, but you'll note that the only places backing up Monsanto's claim, are Monsanto themselves, and people funded by Monsanto (though oddly not the FDA, despite the fact that it's headed by Monsanto). Monsanto's been sued repeatedly, claims they stopped doing it, sometimes going so far as to claim they never have, but they've been caught lying so many times it isn't even funny. Additionally, should that fail to discourage, they're just as fond of stopping you from replanting via licensing, then sue you, and take your land, whether you were planting or not.

We're gonna need GMO to feed the population someday, but as it stands now, it's being used for nothing but domination of the food supply leading to more starvation, rather than less.

>>6795735
so you have no evidence that any sterile seeds are being sold? That's what I thought.

>shill
Back to NaturalNews you schizoid faggot.

>>6795733
Thats what I said with some points being suspended, like the destruction of seeds, nonetheless, there's still parts being enforced, such as fines for using unregistered seeds. Amongst the 80 or so 'promises' only 10 or so were fulfilled, the farmers calmed down, dispersed, and the fulfillment of promises stopped there.

A year has passed since the suspension of the most awful parts of it, which is supposed to last two years, in which some alternatives are supposed to be proposed. So far, all the proposals have been struck down and if the two years pass and no proposals have been found fit, 970 gets back in full force.

They are basically stalling it.

Farmers for now find it more feasible to use natural variations and pay some of the fines (where before they had to pay fines and have their seeds destroyed).

Monsanto is still being allowed to do research on the indigenous variations and making modifications to their genomes (and getting rights to both the genomes of the originals and the modified versions).

>>6795736
Just gave you about 500,000 links with evidence in about 0.6 seconds, but short of the president of Monsanto telling you personally, I don't think you'd believe it, and even then, you'd just agree with him that it was for the greater good. There's nothing anyone could say to open your eyes to what Monsanto really represents, so it's like debating the existence of god at this point.

>>6795742
>Just gave you about 500,000 links with evidence in about 0.6 seconds
I don't see any. Why don't you post them?

>but short of the president of Monsanto telling you personally, I don't think you'd believe it
All I'm asking is for you to prove what you claimed. If it's true it shouldn't be that hard to do. Or are you just embarrassed because you got caught lying?

>>6795743
Maybe you missed the link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monsanto+one-shot+sterile+seeds#

None of which will satisfy you, I'm sure, despite the fact that there's more evidence there than just about anything else you can search the net for. There's counter arguments there too, but you'll note that they are all by folks Monsanto is funding, or by Monsanto itself, but as you've already made it clear that those are the only claims you care about, again, we can't have a debate on the subject.

>>6795752
Again, I don't see any evidence on google that sterile seeds are being sold. If you say that it does then post the links. The fact that you won't and keep posting google leads me to believe you don't have any evidence and are a liar. So you can either post the evidence or be a liar. Which is it?

>>6795756
Well, I'm getting a few hundred thousand links on the subject, and while Google may customize results to a degree, I really doubt they've managed to filter them out completely just to keep you happy.

But, on the off chance you aren't just trolling at this point, however minute it maybe, which news sources would you accept as credible that isn't funded by Monsanto? Maybe I can oblige. Otherwise, there's just no point.

>>6795762
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sterile+GMO+seeds+are+a+myth

Uh oh, looks like I just proved you wrong by posting a google search.

>>6795767
First result NPR (sponsored by Monsanto).

Second result from Monsanto itself.

Fifth, seventh, and ninth results, debunking the above results, and providing examples.

Tenth result describing how Monsanto holds the patent on terminator seeds.

Thanks for proving my point.

>>6795762
>But, on the off chance you aren't just trolling at this point, however minute it maybe, which news sources would you accept as credible that isn't funded by Monsanto?
Any reputable news source. Any source that doesn't spew pseudoscience like NaturalNews. It really shouldn't be that hard

>>6795769
>First result NPR (sponsored by Monsanto).
Wrong again, NPR is not sponsored by Monsanto:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/06/npr_is_not_running_monsanto_sp_1.html

You aren't very good at this. you seem to know how to use google but you lack the intellect to research claims you want to believe before you post them.

>>6795481
>people accept capitalism because it's just an extension of the natural order of things - everybody is free to produce and trade as he sees fit, and its everybodys own responsibility to make sure he gets what he wants in return for his goods or services.
>fucking with this elemental freedom will rile people up against you, specifically those you do not want to be your enemies - productive citizens with lots of ambition and creativity - because your ideology would strip them of the fruits of their labor and force them down to the level of a moronic pleb.

Such truth. Saved.

>>6795771
4chan prevents my response to this, detects it as spam... Probably too many links...

But that's what pasta-bin is for:
http://pastebin.com/Nr3vm97G

Suffice to say, straight off, NPR is funded by Monsanto, and that's easy enough to prove with their own sources, linked above.

Monsanto purchased not only patents for terminator seeds, but the companies that manufactures them, and MIT proved they were indeed making and selling them, similarly linked above. This lead to a supreme court case, and people were taking Monsanto all over court over it, for several years before then. Suffice to say, not the sort of thing that gets you to circuit courts, just by making it up.

And outside the US, they bought manage to change laws to allow it, despite their "pledge" not to use it, and the fact that their plants are sterile. (Also linked above.)

No nature-nut sources used in set above. APM/PRI used for the NPR argument. Monsanto itself cited for several of the court cases in question.

>>6795706
Man I would hate to be the parents that suck so bad at their religion that they can't explain it to their kid and then that kid goes to hell because they didn't understand well enough.
:(

>>6795707
I'm surprisingly indifferent.

ie. if it goes on forever, it could just be the same thing repeating every time the same.
from this perspective it becomes evident that a universe existing but once and never again could be more meaningful and in some sense 'better' than an eternal one.

>>6795784
>Makes seeds with it:
This seems to be a personal blog and this person is mistaken. Roundup Ready doesn't have "terminator technology". If that were true then farmers wouldn't be able to save seeds from the crop and plant them again, but they have.

>Goes to court over it, and partly loses:
Funny how you are now using Monsanto as a source but I'm not allowed to use it as a source. Also, where does it say anything about sterile seeds?

>Meanwhile, outside the US, they get the green light for it:
Both those articles specifically say sterile seeds aren't being sold. Thanks for yet another source proving me right.

Again, your original claim was that sterile seeds are on the market all over the world. There is not a single market with sterile seeds. If there were, it would be easy to show it. It makes little sense for Monsanto to claim they aren't selling the seeds if they actually are. How would they keep it a secret if they are trying to sell it?

Different races are not equal and believing that they are is absurd. You cannot possibly belie e in evolution and then way that a species separated for tens of thousands of years by tens of thousands of miles across every convievable environment is going to be entirely equal. Just like certain groups are predisposed to conditions like cycle cell and tay Sachs, they can be predisposed to aggression/violence and different levels of intelligence. There are obviously brilliant people of every race but there are very clear patterns of crime rates, IQ, poverty, education, exc exc throughout most of the world.

Different racial groups are not equal and believing that they are is absurd. You cannot possibly believe in evolution and then say that a species separated for hundreds of thousands of years by tens of thousands of miles across every conceivable climate and geography is going to be completely equal. In the same vein that a certain group is predisposed to Sickle Cell or Tay-Sachs, intelligence, and violence/aggression are things that are probably more/less likely in some races then others, and this is supported by academia, but if you talk about it you're a Nazi.

There are obviously brilliant people of every race, but there are very clear patterns of crime and education rates/IQ throughout most of the world, with East Asians/Jews being at the top, followed by Whites, and Sub-Saharan Africans/Australian Aborigines being at the bottom, with everyone else in between.

There was an interesting article in NPR about a tribe in Kenya.
>He says that while we tend to think of Kenyans as really good distance runners, all these runners are actually from the same tribe of Kenyans known as the Kalenjin. They number around 5 million, making them a small minority, even in Kenya, yet they dominate most of the world's long-distance races.
>"There are 17 American men in history who have run under 2:10 in the marathon," Epstein says. "There were 32 Kalenjin who did it in October of 2011."

>That left Epstein when he was writing his book exploring a more controversial line of inquiry: Is there something genetically different about the Kalenjin that makes them superior runners?
>Asking that question almost convinced Epstein to back out of his book contract. He realized he'd have to address sensitive questions of ethnic and racial differences. Academics told him they had evidence of genetic advantage but wouldn't share their research with him for fear they'd lose their jobs. "And these were professors with tenure," he says.

>>6795797
>Makes seeds with it:
There's no blogs with that comment in that set. The only blogs are from the NPR ombudsman and one regarding screwy licensing with sources.

>How would they keep it a secret if they are trying to sell it?
You'd know that, if you bothered reading the links, or even skimming them. Tried to give you sources you'd like, but as I suspected, you just aren't ready to hear anything bad about Monsanto, even when it's from Monsanto itself. As I figured, waste of effort.

>>6795807
There are obviously genetic differences between the races, most glaringly in our hair, skin, and bone structure, which makes it all the more absurd when people claim we're exactly the same. Over the course of human history we've evolved in ways to best suit our environments and in response to the environments we've created for ourselves. People of European descent are generally not lactose intolerant because of thousands of years of drinking milk while most of the rest of the world is lactose intolerant. Monoamine oxidase A (The warrior gene), is a gene that has strong links with agression and anti-social behavior, and is significantly more common in men of African descent then European descent.

And given that Africa's population is going to quadruple to 4 billion by 2100, while the civilized world kills itself, the world is fucked.

>>6795812
>There's no blogs with that comment in that set. The only blogs are from the NPR ombudsman and one regarding screwy licensing with sources.
This is a student's blog:
http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

>You'd know that, if you bothered reading the links, or even skimming them.
I did read all the links. None of them say that Monsanto is selling sterile seeds, except for the one obviously wrong blog about Roundup Ready.

I don't see why you are turning a simple matter of proving what you say into me not accepting anything bad about Monsanto. I'm simply pointing out a single thing that you said was wrong. And because you cannot show that you were right you are acting like I'm crusading against you.

Logical positivism is overrated and definitely not absolute

Races exist. Men and women are different biologically, psychologically, and in cognitive capabilities. Gender is based on biological sex.

>>6795841
No way. Gender is a social construct, like the vagina, or penis.

>>6795849
Some people socially construct their penis into a vagina

>>6795849
Women should not be allowed to vote.

The eradication of small pox is one of the single most incredible things humans have done but it may, in the long run, do more harm then good. Things like small pox, malaria, and lack of food have kept the shit hole countries/regions of the world from growing too large, but now as the western world solves those problems through vaccinations and food/medical aid, their populations are exploding. Africa can't feed itself now, by 2100 Nigeria will have as many as one billion people, Africa 4 billion, while the western world continues to decline due to falling birth rates and rising immigration from these countries

ITT: /pol/ getting b8ed like a moth to the flame

>>6794689

If you don't believe anything that is socially unacceptable, your beliefs are determined by social acceptability and are rubbish.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

>>6795865
>If you don't believe anything that is socially unacceptable, your beliefs are determined by social acceptability and are rubbish.
What's rubbish is your logic.

>>6795861
>Women should not be allowed to vote.

Feminism reflects and attempts to cover up the deep shame women feel for their pathetic non-contribution to civilization, their lesser intelligence, their weaker bodies, their hyper-emotionality and irrationality.

Feminist theory is in every case, a second rate and warmed over version of some obsolete and/or discredited theory invented by a man.

Marxism: Kate Millet

Psychoanalysis: Judith Butler, Nancy Chodorow, Helene Cixous, etc
Existentialism: deBeauvoir

LIberation Theory/theology: This has been quietly forgotten due to the embarrassing fact that modern feminism is a movement of powerful people rather than a movement against power.

Traditional liberalism: Mary Wollstoncraft

>>6795868
If your beliefs are determined by social acceptability, they therefore contain no other information other than the fact they are socially acceptable.

>>6795878
+postmodernism, deconstruction, 'theory' etc.
Every toxic fad of the last 200 years finds its way into feminism.

Also: why are feminists so screwed up.

Zoe Quinn is not the first (pic refers).

Eg Mary Wollonstoncraft ("Vindication of the rights of women"):

Single Mum - check

Pregnant to bad boy who dumped her - check (alpha fux)

Married beta she had previously scorned for the beta buxs.

Multiple suicide "attempts".

Her book a rambling mishmash of illogic and hand waving.

>>6795594
Your statement might make sense if the building blocks are small biochemical units that can actually self organize, but computers don't work even remotely like that.

There's so many idiosyncrasies specific to the medium that intelligence naturally takes shape in (biology), that to think it's implementation on a digital medium is "a matter of time" is sheer stupidity.

>>6795955
It's still a matter of time... I just likely tack on a lot more time than that poster, or indeed most individuals - like thousands of years, barring a dark age.

>>6795976
Not everything that could conceivably be accomplished by Homo sapiens will be...

>>6796020
Given our track record, seems more likely a whole lot of things that were previously inconceivable will be.

Barring failing to avoid extinction of course, which is a strong possibility, given how far from the surface we've been in the past 42 years.

>>6795708
It boggles my mind that there are still people who defend Monsanto without being paid just to be edgy.. Not that Monsanto doesn't likely have a huge internet social engineering presence, I just find it hard to believe they'd bother with /sci/.

Less a biotech company -- more a law firm and lobbying group.

>>6794719
>>6795807
>>6795822
While there's obviously genetic advantages and disadvantages to every race, (while I'm sure to say folks are claiming otherwise is scarecrow save for all but a tiny minority of extreme SJW's), the drift isn't really strong enough to threaten the species as a whole. You can teach retards to work at McDonalds - I'm sure you can even teach them rocket science, even if you'd have to give them an extraordinarily narrow focus. There's enough people to go around and specialize that +/- even 30% average capability isn't going to spell dewm for humanity, and we're looking at considerably less than that, assuming we all continue to interbreed at the same increasingly alarming rate.

...and even though the population is exploding in Africa, well, that's what AIDS and Ebola-chan are for.

Not that the worst part of it isn't cultural. Aid to Africa is probably holding Africa back more than anything, and that's the intent, really - foreign aid usually isn't about helping, it's about creating dependency and thus forcing changes that are to your economic advantage. People who grow up believing they are useless savages, will generally find a way to fulfill the prophecy, even if a few escape their ingrained social morays. Niggers in the ghetto, similarly, are being held back by their culture, first and foremost, and their genetics second. (Not that it isn't a factor - just not the biggest one.)

>>6794689
I believe that that picture is actually related to this thread.

A creator.

Racial differences.

Gender mental differences.

That it is somehow possible to go faster than the speed of light.

>>6796077
(Googles)
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/

Yeah, that'd be pretty controversial - and opens all sorts of unanswerable cans of worms.

If universes can interact in any way shape or form, however, there has to be a limited number of them, which, again, opens more cans of worms.

I recall some cosmologist, presumably talking out of his ass, saying that, theoretically, a new universe could pop-up in your living room, and you'd never notice, as it'd be moving away from you at faster than the relative speed of light.

Got a lot of cosmologists talking out of their asses lately, and worse, people taking what they say out of context. Makes for some potentially fun Dr. Who episodes though.

>>6794689
Determinism

>>6796086
>I recall some cosmologist, presumably talking out of his ass, saying that, theoretically, a new universe could pop-up in your living room, and you'd never notice, as it'd be moving away from you at faster than the relative speed of light.
I think I'd hear the explosion of the big bang if it happened in my living room.
>If universes can interact in any way shape or form, however, there has to be a limited number of them
Why?

>>6796092
>I think I'd hear the explosion of the big bang if it happened in my living room.
Think the idea would be that it'd be moving away so fast, that it essentially wouldn't exist in your frame.

>Why?
Because an infinite number of interacting universes, means an infinite number of interactions, and thus an infinite amount of "bruising", not to mention heat, no matter how rare such interactions are.

...or as one of my physicists friends used to say, infinity + 1 = toast.

But if interactions are rare enough, you can certainly have a Texas shitload of them, for instance, one for every non-virtual particle in the universe... or more... But if they can only interact during their creation, I've no idea how we're ever going to know anything about them.

>>6796092

>I think I'd hear the explosion of the big bang if it happened in my living room.

The big bang not being an explosion, I doubt it.

>>6796102
I mean I'd hear the cry of creationists all over the planet as they realized they had been living a lie.

>>6796105
Most of them already realize it... But they also realize the social implications of the opposite belief, and thus continue to profess it, and encourage others to do the same.

In the grand scheme of religion, it doesn't matter if gods exist, or if they created the universe - it's irrelevant to the core purposes of religion. Fundamentalism, isn't about religion - it's about power.

>>6796107
Ah.

>>6796107
Mmm
Tis really just the codified passing on of values, advice, rules and what have you.

I personally hypothesise a large driving factor of the codification was to reign in kids of shitty parents who didn't educate properly their young on the values of the city/state [large tribe] properly when populations became too large for the elders to monitor and guide everyone's development directly through oral stories and whatnot.

>>6796127
But then obviously your average person couldn't be told about this otherwise they'd fuck it all up for the others.

>>6796127
>>6796129
Shit. I accidentally triggered a reddit brigade.

Global Warming

>>6796135
>reddit brigade.
?

>>6794689
>Most problems between human groups are derived from genetic differences which shape capabilities and character.
>Caucasians are homo sapien sapien expressing the most advanced homo sapien genetic code
>Blacks are homo sapiens expressing mostly archaic genetics.
>Aboriginals from Australia and Polynesia are a homo sapien and Densisovan hybird with phenotypes much closer to Densisovan than homo sapien. They should not be considered human lacking both the intelligence and genetic adapdations to experience humanity.
>Jews and Gypsies carry the greatest amounts of Neanderthal DNA, with some inbred populations reaching around 75% Neanderthal. This is why they are so obsessed with in group breeding, racial dominance and are as a group cruel, heartless and cunning. Out-group Empathy was not a feature of Neanderthal's. It is also why they are so intelligent as a group.
>Asians are a mix of Red Deer People or Homo floresiensis or both with homo sapien sapien. East Asians express the homo sapien sapien genes at much higher rates than South Asians. Some Japanese should be considered white, especially groups like Anu.

1/3

>>6796192
Intelligence is the primary factor in development. The variations of certain intelligences defines how civilization develops.
>Social IQ is ones ability to properly socialize and pickup and even use social norms. The higher this IQ the better a groups ability to peacefully maintain high numbers and large cities.
>Emotional IQ: Ability to experience a diversity of emotions, maturely. Furthermore high emotional IQ is market by the ability to apply empathy to different human groups and non sentient life. This drives both systems of justice but systems of conflict resolution. Treatment of a defeated enemy results as follows: Low EIQ results in genocide, medium in enslavement, high in autonomy or peaceful regime change.
>Cognitive IQ is correlated with sophisticated, long range, long term thinking, directly influencing both technology advancement but longevity of civilization.
>Linguistic is ones command of complex language and thought and directly correlated with diversity of political theories, arts and everything that comes from writing. This also includes the purposeful manipulation of language for ones own interests.

You need a good amount of ALL of these in order to develop into the first world.

I believe an oligarchical type system to be the best governing method.

But i dont mean a roman, rich and noble birth, i mean more like a contries policies and what not are not decided by the people per say but by those who have the most knowledge in the subject, for example whereever policy can be dictated by scientific consensus, it would be, even if the people/majority disagree.

This of course leaves out alot of stuff, but if there is a way of achiveing an objective answer with the best science/knowledge available at the time for what can be measured, that will be done by the scientific consensus results, rather then the party with the majority ideas for what the best solution is.

>>6796197
Assuming a rating of 1-4 just like GPA the groups rank as follows.

>Africans: S:2 E:1 C:2 L:1 Overall: 1.5
>Aboriginals: S:2 E:1 C:1 L:1 Overall: 1.25
>Jews: S:3 E:1 C:4 L:4 Overall: 3.0
>Other Semites: S:3 E:2 C:3 L:3 Overall: 2.75
>East Asians: S:4 E:3.5 C:3.5 L:4 Overall: 3.75
>South Asians: S:3 E:2 C:3 L:3 Overall: 2.75
>Native Americans: S:2.5 E:3 C:2 L:2 Overall: 2.375
>Caucasian: S:4 E:3 C: 3.5 L:4 Overall: 3.625

Now lets add in some relatives from the Homo Genus
>Neanderthals: S:2 E:1 C:4 L:2 Overall: 2.25
>Densisovan: S:1 E:2 C:1-2 L: 1 Overall: 1.375
>Homo floresiensis: S:1 E:1.5 C:1 L:? Overall: 1.0-1.25

A few things to note
>the higher the score the more successful the civilizations built by that people
>A 1 in any area will have resulted in severe development issues despite high scores for other traits (IE Jews) The reason for this is groups need ALL of these traits to develop, not most of them. An example is Jews: they have terrible empathetic IQs which has resulted in severe development retardation. It's hard to develop highly stratified societies without collaboration and mutual assistance.
>The Homo Genus is all a guess based on the little data we have, it should be used as an example to which we can compare ourselves and other groups.

The bottom line here is some human groups are not capable of sophisticated development. They should be left in their natural habitat where they have become specialized. This is not only best for their own mental health and stability but better for everyone else too. No one, and I mean no one wants a work for of Aboriginals. Fuck that. Nor does anyone want to be ruled by Jews. Fuck that too.

>>6796192
>the most advanced homo sapien genetic code
There is no such thing as "most advanced genetic code"... Evolution does not have an end-game goal. It's just whatever works at the time.

There's plenty of species with more code than we have, and among our own, those with the most genetic information - tend to be retarded.

Now, I'll give you that it maybe that white genetics are, on average, better adapted to thrive in society than black genetics, but that's not a matter of being "advanced" - that's a matter of fitting within a specific environment... And further, it might be quite the opposite, in another environment.

>>6796216
Correct. I should have phrased it as the most specialized DNA for development and civilization alongside East Asians of course.

>>6795379
> Race and gender are social constructs,
> logically disconnected from the
> biology of phenotypes and chromosomes.
>
> The reality of global warming
> is fucking grim.
>
> Almost all conspiracy theories
> are bullshit.

The only controversial thing you believe in is your definition of controversial.

>>6794718
obviously wrong, but it won't be controversial on /sci/

>>6794790
man is nature

>>6796202
>Low EIQ results in genocide, medium in enslavement, high in autonomy or peaceful regime change
>Caucasian: E:3
Have you paid attention to history? Actually pretty much every race of humans on this earth and every ethnic group were perpetrators of genocide and such acts. They should all have horrible scores.

>>6794689
I do not believe in the utility of insurance.

In fact, I would rather support investment bankers than companies that deal with mandated insurance.

>>6796262
You are correct, but there exists shades of grey. We all have boners, but Asians have the smallest, and Blacks the biggest. We can still make certain judgments about them.

Take for example the USSR during the Bolshevik revolution which was entirely Jewish. 50 million Russians died during their rule.

Or maybe some ancient examples. Genocide is part of semitic society so far as any historian can tell. Odin specifically forbade it.

Another equally explosive and meaningful revolution happened in Germany at the same time. In total less than .5 million people perished as a direct result of White Nationalist rule and most of those were parasites like gpysies and resistance fighters from Poland and France.

Now that is a single example but throughout history Jews have always shown some of the least amounts of empathy with East Asians and Whites showing the highest. Sparing a life is empathy you know. Or deciding not to torture or rape.

>>6796262
You are correct, but there exists shades of grey. We all have boners, but Asians have the smallest, and Blacks the biggest. We can still make certain judgments about them.

Take for example the USSR during the Bolshevik revolution which was entirely Jewish. 50 million Russians died during their rule.

Another equally explosive and meaningful revolution happened in Germany at the same time. In total less than .5 million people perished as a direct result of White Nationalist rule and most of those were parasites like gpysies and resistance fighters from Poland and France.

Or maybe some ancient examples. Genocide is part of semitic society so far as any historian can tell. Odin specifically forbade it.

Now that is a single example but throughout history Jews have always shown some of the least amounts of empathy with East Asians and Whites showing the highest. Sparing a life is empathy you know. Or deciding not to torture or rape.

>This thread
>99% of posts are about race
Come on guys there's more to life

>>6796147
I'm just talkin' shit, mate.

>>6796284

>implying

To them race is their life, there's a reason why /sci/ regularly shits on biology and social sciences.

If you were to take any one of these anons and put them in a /sci/ thread talking about topics like topology, epidemiology or material science they would be for the most part completely lost.

All this thread does is simply highlight what kind anons /sci/ has to deal with on a semi-regular basis.

LaTeX is pronounced [ lah-teks ]

>>6796303
>To them
You realize you are also on /sci/ right now?
Negative generalizations like this are no better than negative generalizations about race.
They're both rooted in a desire to understand and effectivize your interpretation of the world around you but for a place which chief interest is supposedly science you'd think the people who visit it would be better at controlling that impulse and to actively judge people and situations based on their own merits.

>>6794689
>GMOs are fine
I think most people who don't like GMOs have no scientific clue about GMOs and just band wagon on hating them due to articles they read written by someone who assumes all science is evil.

>Fracking is fine
I think in general fracking is fine at least in the sense it is less enviormentally damaging than most other methods and most of the damage has come from either human error or damage that would have happened regardless of fracking. For example the whole thing with methane entering peoples taps which a huge deal was made about, happens quite often and is not due to fracking but due to pretty much bad piping which if cracked near methane can cause this. So its not the fracking its just the act of building something near bad pipes, this happens very often with any sort of building going on near pipes like this.

>I am fine with chemicals in our water supply
The area I lived in banned a certain chemical from being used in the water despite no evidence against it, 4 years later thyroid problems had risen 82% in the area, they reintroduced and thyroid problems pretty much disappeared.

>>6794689
I think that any kind of government is wrong and that it is only moral to strive for anarchy.
I mean, state regulation to a lesser or greater extent is and will be the monopoly and legitimization of violence.

I don't discuss politics. Is my opinion controversial, /pol/?

>>6796241

They're all controversial here, granted not in science.

>>6796283

Someone trying to make this argument given the holocaust is devastatingly stupid.

>>6795878
>>6795895

This is some of the, worst founded, least educated drivel I've read on /o/

>>6796818

lol, meant /sci/

>>6795880
>If your beliefs are determined by social acceptability
Where did you prove anyone's beliefs are determined by social acceptability? Simply having a belief does not tell you why that person has the belief.

>>6794689
I believe some form of higher power dictates the balance of the universe.

But I am not religious.

>>6794689
I believe in the number Pi.

>>6795397
My IQ is 144

Stop being wrong

meritocracy is the only sensible way to organise society

it is impossible to say whether or not god exists because god cannot be defined

it is highly likely that we are being observed by a greater intelligence than ours

consciousness and memories do not require a brain, but interaction with this 3d universe does, and the brain helps to facilitate that

telepathy, precognition and presentiment are real phenomena, but depend on some unobservable transient factor, as well as some degree of aptitude

the afterlife is probably a real thing, but we do not experience it individually in the same way that we experience what we call life

>>6794689
Social Sciences are a 'soft' science. Depending on their subject matter, they're either more science or philosophy.

And that is perfectly fine.

I believe the only valid base is base 1 and we should dismiss base 2 from computing

>>6796901
I usually skip right to base 3.

If you catch my drift

>>6796901
What the fuck are you talking about? There's no base 2 and base 1.
Only base 10.

>>6796918
Yeah I am with you on this. I don't even know what the first two are called tbh

>>6796878
>My IQ is 144

How many confirmed kills though?

>>6795482
Oh the irony

>>6795807
>>humans
>>separated for hundreds of thousands of years
>>evolution

Lolok

>>6797265
What are you implying?

>>6795822
>>Monoamine Oxidase A
>>Agression
>>Not depression

Pffft

>>6797269
I'm implying that you're a fucking idiot. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but I have faith that you'll move on.

>>6797278
I didn't write the post you were responding to, fuckstick.
I was just curious.

>>6797288
You're still an idiot, you irrational piece of meat

>>6797290
I see.

>>6797290

-Intelligence has a strong genetic factor.

-Property rights should be fully customizable according to the will of the pertinent parties. Same for revenue. Probably most firms would share the profit according to the market price of the function of each individual, investment, risk shared (if any), etc.

-Universes pop in and out of existence in an infinite "void" thanks to the same shit that causes the cassimir effect

-Some crimes, like senseless murder, should be punishable with forced labour untill the criminal consumes more than what it produces. Then you use his/her organs.

-The tax structure should be desgined in a way that the bigger some companies get, more of their tax dollars go to encouraging smaller companies (lowering entry barriers, providing business advice, etc.) so they do not have enough power to change the initial rules.

-Education should focus not only in content, but in making sure children develop critical thinking skills and logical rigor.

-Every single discipline could use some math.

-4chan is also falling into the bullshit ideas that are so common in politically correct colleges, albeit slowly.

-The wage gap is a myth and there is absolutly no excuse to make laws that implicitly or explicitly discriminate based on sex, race or whatever is not related to the functions relevant to the pertinent activity.

>>6797331
-Universes pop in and out of existence in an infinite "void" thanks to the same shit that causes the cassimir effect

>I fucking love science!


-Every single discipline could use some math.

>I haven't taken math since freshman year

Religion becomes more a "ready-at-hand" metatechnology than a big scary thing. To explain the factions of thy consciousness and the things necessary to placate them is something beyond the ken of most of the young-ins here. Not as a matter of intelligence but as a matter of experience.

There will be a gene market this century that will outpace the expectations both SJWs and nationalist racists.

AIs will be harbored in pedagogical simulations that give them the wisdom and insanity of gods of light and dark. Simulations where life after life they live learning the lessons of the simulation. What type of simulation (and concurrently, what kind of lessons) is something to be determined.

You should be mad scrambling to get in the top 5% or get good eggs and sperm from the top 5%. I'll let someone else's descendants be the footstools and fuckholes of our future overlords.

>>6794689
Everything would be better if we could quantify it. especially humanistic traits like emotion.

>>6794689
Most people with low IQ tend to be racist because they read a single paper not indexed (I bet they don't even know what that means) about racial differences or something like that. Not to mention statistics about 100 people.

>>6797364
Except I have. Almost every discipline has some element that is measurable or at least is able to be expressed in quantifiable terms.

>>6797412
>People with low IQs tend to form their opinions by reading academic papers

>>6797412
Exactly. To convince me of differences in cognitive performance between races, I would require e.g. >1,000,000 individuals per year taking a standardized test of reasoning ability that correlates strongly with IQ, with strong incentives to perform well (so, for example, these tests ought to have some real-world significance to the test takers' later prestige, social status, income, etc.)
Since no such statistics exist, it's hard to believe the "race realists" - their so-called evidence consists exclusively of biased studies with laughably tiny sample sizes.

>>6797523
You illustrate his point quite well
Are you a poet?

I've posted this on sci before and they called me crazy. I honestly think that dreams and their contents can affect your functioning during the day. maybe it's not supposed to work like that, but it does happen.

Pic related.

Is it a Daily Mail study? No. It is a Daily Mail article about a study conducted by one of the worlds leading universities. Lets just get that out the way.

>>6797545
Can you explain what you mean? You aren't saying that you really believe that the reason people with below average IQs are more racist is that they are less discerning in which research papers they read, right?

>>6797542
Those are not tiny sample sizes.

I mean, I'm pretty sure all of our estimates of disease prevalence in certain regions of the world, and other things like that, are based on thousands, not millions.

>>6794717
>chinks are at the top.
Is that solely based on IQ scores?
I would say chinks and Europeans are both at the top, the difference either way would be negligible all things considered.

>>6797573
Ashkenazi Jews are at the top

>>6797331
>encouraging smaller companies
encouraging them to do what?

>>6795576
You don't actually solve any problems by doing that, you just create another one. The reason we can solve the "twin prime" conjecture if it was limited to a finite set would be because you could just compute it. You're not solving the twin prime conjecture, just changing the definition.

Anyway, solving it wouldn't have any immediate impact on anything practical anyway. It would be completely useless to declare "hey guys, you know that computation for the twin primes being true for up to 10^whatever? Let's just say the whole thing is true and call it a day"

>>6796818
Abuse is not an argument. And that's all you offer.

>>6796849

Think of it this way. What is socially acceptable is only weakly aligned to what is true. And what is socially acceptable changes dramatically over short periods eg acceptability of homosexuality. This in spite of not much changing in terms of actual evidence.

So if all your beliefs are socially acceptable it is likely that you believe them *because* they are socially acceptable, rather than because they are true.

I suggest reading Paul Graham's essay which I linked to before and which goes into much more detail on this.

>>6796878
When did you join the navy seals?

>>6796878
It is possible for a sub-saharan African to have an IQ of 144. Most likely though, this will happen to someone who is not 100% sub-Saharan African. The admixture of white genes makes a high IQ much more likely - IQ in blacks is correlated with lightness of skin color.

Even in 100% SSAs it is possible to have an IQ of 144. This would be roughly equivalent to a white having an IQ of 160, which does happen. Normal distribution and all that.

>>6797625
Forget this I assumed the above poster was African.

>What controversial things do you believe in?
Humanity is awesome.

Intelligent design

The sheer statistics of how we as a species came to be are too improbable to be considered luck or circumstance.

Infinity doesn't exist.

>>6795379
Your first statement is just retarded

>>6794731
I think genes = 100% of how you react to the nurture

>>6797641
You're an idiot.

I believe CAGW is not true.

>>6797641
The problem is... stats don't mean shit. Sorry to break it to you, but they're just ways of interpreting populations, drawing your basis of how all life came to be based on stats is stupid

>>6797556

It's not really something that can be scientifically proven but it does make perfect sense.

Dream about busting your teeth ---> take care of your teeth.
Dream about falling to death ---> respect heights
Dream about embarrassing yourself ---> be more careful in social situations

etc etc

>>6795477

Society wouldn't function if people were as dumb as everyone says.

When it comes to the average person being stupid, I think it's confirmation bias more than anything else.

>>6795686
>The Nazi German society almost certainly had one of the highest IQs in the world at the time.

[citation fucking needed]

>>6795374
>Psychology and sociology are soft sciences and soft sciences are sciences, and important ones at that.

This isn't controversial outside of /sci/

>>6797648

Sorry about facts.

>>6794750
What is value?

>>6798420
I think we can safely say that the statement is true even without a definition for the term "value".

Thought precedes matter
There are E.T.'s on this planet right now
Psychic phenomenon are totally legit

>>6794779
>I have the empirical fact that we've never seen a being of intellect greater than the smartest human
Which states nothing of what is possible.

Evolution by natural selection is simply an optimization algorithm that finds local fitness maxima, you're giving it more credit than is due.

>>6797641
Reminds me of that Feynman quote about the license plate.

Low carbohydrate diets

>>6796202
>Now lets add in some relatives from the Homo Genus
>Neanderthals: S:2 E:1 C:4 L:2 Overall: 2.25
>Densisovan: S:1 E:2 C:1-2 L: 1 Overall: 1.375
>Homo floresiensis: S:1 E:1.5 C:1 L:? Overall: 1.0-1.25

How the hell are you getting IQ values form long-extinct human relatives?

>>6797625

>It is possible for a sub-saharan African to have an IQ of 144. Most likely though, this will happen to someone who is not 100% sub-Saharan African. The admixture of white genes makes a high IQ much more likely -

It only makes a high IQ likely if the genes from the white contributor were actually coded for higher than average intelligence. This is also assuming the admixture that is there is that of a white contributor and not of some middle eastern or asian contributor which would also contribute to possible higher than average intelligence.

But that isn't the problem, the real problem is based on frequency of the genes, it's entirely possible to have a 100% or near 100% sub-saharan african with an IQ that high but it would be rare simply because the coded genes for it is not common within the population itself. Thus the admixture from outside populations allows an increase in the frequency of the genes.

>IQ in blacks is correlated with lightness of skin color.

Only because you use skin color as the only measure. You could easily say that IQ in blacks is correlated with Myopia and have similar if not more accurate results.

>>6796192

Where does this quote come from?

The thing about African diamond mines is that they made diamonds worthless.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2013/04/09/diamonds-driven-by-market-forces-for-the-first-tim

>>6794689
morphogenetic field

Jesus did exist and he was a very special person, but he wasn't nailed to a cross. That part is a myth.

I believe that animals can talk to each other and only humans cant understand it

>>6798748
How so?

>>6798760
Sometimes at night I see my cat meeting in my Garden with a Badger and a Squirrel and they just sit there in a circle making strange sounds for hours. When I try to join them they run away. I tried to understand what they say but I dont get it.

>>6794689
>What controversial things do you believe in?
Evolution
*tips fedora*

>>6798734
Muslim, please, where does the He wasn't nailed to a cross part comes from?

>>6798794
Jesus was not actually the son of god. He was a guy who had a deep mathematical secret revealed to him by spirits.
Then later people started making up all these stories about him.

Jelly fish are aliens.

The oceans are fucked as far as every living thing with a spine is concerned because overfishing enables jellyfish to increase thier total biomass while fish are taken out of the ocean faster than they can grow and replenish.

Arctic methane is a bigger prblem than climate scientists are willing to admit, even though tards like Guy McPherson are wrong.

We have locked in atleast 6c of global warming in the long term and about 3c by 2030.

I believe the earth isnt a perfect shere but slighty bend like a ellipse due to rotation.

>>6794689
Peak oil is a very controversial thing I believe in. It is really just undeniable. You can't deny peak oil, and the effects it would have on our society.

I believe we are a part of something as little as an electron and there is more than one universe similar to how planet works but just with more randomness

I believe in multiverses, also that considering the limited possibilities, we (as particles) will be born again in an identical universe infinite times, which means every decision we take are definitive and has already been taken infinite times.

Also I believe that information can travel faster than light.

>>6798891

what is your definition of "little"?

To all the people discussing why black people are more athletic.. it might have something to do with how we enslaved them and literally bred them to be as strong as possible. I mean there's a bit of correlation when you see all of these black athletes coming from the south with names like "Ellington" and "Vanderbuilt" lel

>>6798824
>We have locked in atleast 6c of global warming in the long term and about 3c by 2030.
Yeah, but we are not all fucked, mostly poor countries that import food and third world countries are fucked, for example Australia, a food producing nation, is already plagued with drought, global warming will make it worse so that exports will suffer (go up in price).

>>6798876
>Peak oil is a very controversial thing I believe in. It is really just undeniable. You can't deny peak oil, and the effects it would have on our society.
Learn about supply and demand, oil isn't going to magically all disappear, it will rise slowly and people will adapt. The price isn't going to jump from 100 to 2000 and then we are all screwed.

>>6798891
what the fuck does this even mean

>>6799188
>Learn about supply and demand, oil isn't going to magically all disappear, it will rise slowly and people will adapt. The price isn't going to jump from 100 to 2000 and then we are all screwed.
Not the guy you are talking to but that's what peak oil means, it means oil will continue to get more and more expensive at an accelerating pace once we get passed the peak which we probably already have. The price of fuel is only going to go up from now.

It's amazing how the number on global warming get fucked up in peoples heads.

6 degrees of warming refers to two predictions accepted by the IPCC, one made in 2007 and one made last year. The one in 2007 predicted a small chance 6 degrees above 1990 levels with a probable warming if we do nothing at all of 4.5 degrees, that was revised to small chance of 5 degrees with a probable warming of 3.9 degrees (usually rounded to 4)

BUT, because we have ALREADY experienced about 2 degrees of warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution (1750~1800AD) some people with less than scientific rigor add the two together and still say 6 degrees of warming, they just neglect to mention the baseline they are using is not the one most people think of. The 3 degrees of warming by 2030 is 1 degree of warming above 1990 levels.

There re two more kickers contained in the 2013 IPCC report, the first is that 2 degrees of warming (above 1990) is inevitable, if we reduce emissions to zero tomorrow which would result in the deaths of about 5 billion people we would still have 2 degrees of warming by 2100.Keep in mind that that is half of the 4 degrees we will get if we do absolutely nothing to curb climate change. So the mount of climate change we actually have control over is pretty small and the cost to control it is frankly horrendous.

>>6799232 (cont (sorry))
This leads me to my final point, the most glossed over fact in the lay debate is that the consensus view is that about half of the observed warming was due to natural causes, heat currents in the oceans and the general cyclical nature of the climate, and that the natural cycle seems to be going into a cooling phase. This was only proven in 2012 so there's not a lot of discussion in the 2013 report and the debate amongst scientists continues (is it reprieve and if so is it only temporary) but, as /sci/entists it does force us to recheck our evidence and reassess the situation. To that end I leave you a link to the Remote Satellite System website, who's sole job is to collect data from fleet of temperature modelling satellites and distribute that information to the scientific community, funded by government and not in any way affiliated with any climate skeptic organizations.

This is the evidence, I leave you to mke up your own minds.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate

>>6799236

>http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Reminder that satellite temperature records give consistently lower measurements than land an ocean based temperature records.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

>>6794718
What exactly do you mean by this?

• The human race is unequal across its spectrum in both cultural and physical terms.

• God may exist but not on the terms laid down by human beings as recently as 2000 years ago. If it does exist it probably has little or no interest in life of any kind.

• The universe did not expand from an explosion, It is contracting outwards in every direction from a rip - like a tear in a nylon stocking expands. This explains all of the debris left floating away from each other.

>>6794779
In some ways computers are way more intelligent than humans. For instance computers have dominated at chess for a long time.

>>6795401
Not necessarily true. According to my studies of Epistomology, a belief that is true is knowledge, whereas a belief that is ambiguous is just a belief and does not fall under the idea of knowledge.

>>6795427
lol shut up troll

>>6799348

Sorry you don't know about rotaries?

"A redline a day keeps the mechanic away"

>>6794699
That was OP's intention. Also, you are OP.

>>6798908
Idiotic. therefor must be a non-universe possible universe = paradox

>>6799332
but it doesn't explain why it's accelerating

>>6794689
I think the big bang never happened

>>6798430
Yeah, read the next sentence. Your point has already been addressed, you raging pseudo-intellectual.

I'm sure there were people before Einstein who thought that space travel was merely a challenge of building an extremely large rocket engine. There's no limit to how fast things can go, right?

Lo and behold there were inherent physical constraints that we were previously aware of. Intelligence might be a similar story, given what a strange phenomenon it is.

>>6799334
In some ways worms are way more intelligent then humans. For instance they can make neat underground tunnels.

Your statement that computers are intelligent is a non-sequitur from the example you've given. There's nothing intelligent about following an algorithm CREATED BY HUMANS specifically for deciding next optimal chess move and good for absolutely nothing else.

All religion, the idea of religion, religions considered institutions, people believing in religion and due to that belief becoming ignorant and thrown away from scientific, academic ideas.

A perfect, (not representative of a whole populous) example of this is our good friend Bill O'Reilly's beautiful quote... being said during an Atheist vs Christian argument, "tides go in, tides go out; you can't explain that."

When belief causes ... that ... that's when it becomes ridiculous.

I know it's rule #1 on this board not to discuss religion, but the fact that this rule has to be in place is the exact reason why I don't believe in [the idea of] religion.

Believe in what you want, I can understand it to a certain extent, but when you force your ideas upon people, wage war, breed ignorance and then claim to be the most righteous being on this fucking Earth, fuck you.

Sorry to be that fedora wielding faggot, but it had to be said

>>6799332
The Big Bang is not an explosion. Contracting outwards does not give the isotropy observed.

>>6797561

Do you have the actual link to the study?
It's been known for ages that if the mother went through tertiary education the child is likely to do too. But it can either mean that the child got smart genes and/or a smart mother is better or has better resources for raising children.
I'm not entirely against the idea that genetics play a role in intelligence (it's pretty evident when it comes to chomosomes at least), but it needs to be studied more.
Jews have a stronger emphasis than most religions to study religion from literal sources, which can be a major contributor for creating a reading habit and later on developing cognitive functions. Or reading could've had effect on epigenetics so that generations of bookworms have created family lines that gets stimulated from symbols easily. Then there is the fact that Asian parents can be extremely strict when it comes to studying regimes.

As opposed to the mainstream /pol/ view, I'm not entirely convinced that race is the main contributor.

>>6794689
Time travel is possible, but time paradoxes are impossible, because we aren't changing our "original" reality.
But I'm just pulling a theory out of my ass, I need to do some proper research one day.

>Marx was right
>I'm an English major who browses /sci/
>reading writers like Kuhn & Popper should be mandatory for freshmen Science students.
>Science has not 'disproved' religion and there is great value in myths of origin and strong theological understanding,

>>6799587

Considering that it based itself on a 3/5 correlation, I bet the actual study would probably undermine the point the article is trying to make. Or that's how it usually goes anyway.

Regardless, it's one study. 3/5 correlation from one study.

>>6797648

is it?

"most scientists" disagree, why is that?

>>6800340

Because he doesn't like it, so it's wrong.

Which is the crux of most debates here if we're honest.

>>6799718

Marx was right about the problems he identified.

His solutions are still up in the air and a matter of philosophical debate.

>>6799718
>there is great value in myths of origin and strong theological understanding,

"Theological understanding" obviously your thought is incomplete.

>>6794689

Government can not be separated from the underlying people and culture. There is no government which is significantly better than the people it governs. And for that reason, there is no such thing as an ideal government.

This is why the socialist democracy of Germany works pretty well; it floats on top of a hard working socially conservative people. But the socialist democracy of Greece is a disaster, because it floats on top of a corrupt people.

>>6795439
>I also think that there is an optimal curve of income inequality that America is far past, but that many European and Asian countries sit comfortably in.

The "problem" of income inequality was manufactured by French socialist economists. To a large degree is has been created by central banking which favor bankers/government, the rise of the "cognitive elite" and women moving into the workforce create "power couples" (not saying this is wrong) who make large amounts of money.

>>6800608
>socially conservative

Globally speaking. The German center would be liberal in America.

>>6800613

Did you just imply women in the workforce INCREASES income inequality?

>>6800637

Statistically, yes. Because income is generally measured at the household level. So a guy with a good job marries a woman with a good job and they have high household income. Poor guy marries poor woman and they have low household income. Assortive mating increases household income inequality.

>>6800659

Well you're wrong, statistically. Opening up half the population to the workforce works wonders if your focused on all the measures that aren't household income.

>>6794805
It definitely is. Just look at flagella.

I believe that I am in the generation with indefinitely long lifespans, the one that will have life-extension technologies that extend life faster than we grow older.

(I'm not a singularityfag. I'm far more interested in real-world tech like actual constructed organs, such as those at the Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative Medicine. By the time I'm a centenarian, technology will be available to let me live far longer than that, etc, etc.)

>>6799718
Not to sounds like a total fedora-wielder, but theology is fundamentally flawed in that it puts fuzzy bronze-age musings and understanding on a pedestal, using it as the foundation of discourse. There is nothing theology can do that pure philosophy can't do better.

>>6800664

You're emoting. Income is almost always measured at the household level. I didn't invent that, the people who measure income inequality did.

Funny, ITT about controversial beliefs you're getting awfully worked up.

That separation is a temporary illusion and we are all manifestations of the same underlying force.

>>6796070
Social morays are the best morays.

>>6795681

>>6794689
I believe that Tesla's wireless transmission of power is feasible.
The fanboi club that worship Tesla are a pain because most don't understand shit about physics let alone the abstruse realms of dispersion relations and cross products.
My education in EE showed me the genius in Tesla's motor designs but I had always assumed that greater authority was correct and Tesla was wrong in regards his method of wireless energy transmission. Then I began working in the broadcast industry and microwave power amplification and modulation in particular. Anyone who studies the theoretical workings of a TWT or BWO let alone a Klystron will immediately understand what Tesla was doing with Wardenclyffe.

>>6801089
I don't think there's even a question as whether it's feasible - any kid with a decent CB radio can power a phosphorescent bulb remotely - it's more of question of whether it's practical and profitable.

>>6801167
the technology to transmit energy over global distances with less than 2% loss... and you question if it's practical or profitable?