The Unabomber thread

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
Selection is always occurring given the environment. Of course it is. Thing is, as many on this board predict too ... the environment of recent history has been an aberration and thus, selection will come roaring back in a very acute way, probably pretty soon. Notice that because of the 100,000s of years that made humans what you view them as, these 100 year blips of artificial nothingness do very little to change the overall process, save for an extinction event or something that markedly drops a particular gene pool. Even though it is hyped and seems dire, I just don't see that happening as a big picture crisis, even with european lineages.

In any case, back to selection --- which will come roaring back to your idea of environmental pressures causing greater adaptability --> That will lead to what you classically think of "evolution" as, which is slow steady "progression" or selection of superior characteristics over time. Why? The people propped up in the modern altruist type world economies will be the first to perish, providing a bigger percentage base of growth for the more adaptable gene pools, which now have greater room and resources not hogged by the freeloaders.

This is a very complicated subject because not a lot of people understand how humans have evolved to be more generalized vs. specialized (this is what differentiates the races of men, by and large) but since it took so long they consider that to be what "evolution" is (intelligence, advanced use of tools and technology, etc).


I don't know if I agree with what ilostabet has to say about "evolution" and "biblical accounts" I think mainly because it actually doesn't matter, as long as don't try to say the universe began with something you can't explain and just happened, and expressly not try to call that initiator his name, which is God.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Well, I don't care about usefulness of theories, because I will always be judging them based on what is useful to me. Things are either true or not.

I also think the k-selected, r-selected is mostly bs (along with most evolutionary theory - scratch that, most 'science', it has some truth to it, but 90% is bunk).

I would definitely not abort a down syndrome child for various reasons - I wouldn't know it was one before it was born, for one, because I am against those tests. I also have had a down syndrome woman in my family, who was probably the best person I have ever met, and because she was accompanied from childhood she actually learned to read, write and got a job. Despite her diminished lifespan, she was happy and definitely not a net negative on our family or the world. Radical biological determinism is just as dumb as denying it altogether. Besides, killing babies is immoral, whatever rationalization you use.

Since we have threads about evolution and creationism already, I'd rather take this discussion to what effects technology has on this process of natural selection.

Again it's funny to observe that scientists and technophiles tend to be evolutionists as well, but their very inventions radically undermine that process of selection they hold so dearly (as exemplified in modern human society). God is indeed the supreme ironist.

Question for Ober: I can take from your posts that you value race above all, but you also value the technological society (to a certain extent). In the near future, and barring catastrophe of biblical proportions, it will be possible for scientists to engineer babies of a certain appearance (blue or green eyes, blonde hair) and characteristics (strength, intelligence), even if their parents have none of those things. So, what will you choose in that instance: race or technology? In a sense, the latter will make the former a thing of the past.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I don't value race above all, I value my bloodline above all :)
And I think everybody should do the same.

I don't really have a solid concept for race, I see it more as local evolution(s), so mine would be much narrower definition than what racists use AFAIK.
I mean white race, black race, that's a joke .. take two people from the opposite ends of a continent (europe, africa, whichever you fancy) and they won't have much in common, since they adapted to totally different conditions.

But that's all fine, I don't hate anyone in case it must be said, everybody has a right to live.
Not necessarily in a country which isn't theirs but that's a different subject :)

Also I'm a scientist but I'm extremely wary of technology - I make it, and thus know how fallible it can be.
I work on safety-critical systems, which makes me very aware of how complex makes fragile.
I'm actually pretty low-tech in what I buy or make for myself.

So no, I would not want an engineered baby.
If I hadn't been able to conceive myself naturally I wouldn't have wanted any help and would simply have accepted that my genes do not deserve to be passed on for some reason.

Regarding abortion sure killing babies is wrong.
When abortion came to be discussed in this country the arguments for it were that it would be helpful for cases of rape, malformations, etc.
I'm not sure I have a problem with that, the problem I have is that nowadays it's used for precisely anything and everything - except these very cases which lead to its adoption in our legal system.

And technology (to go back to the original topic) is not a very interesting subject IMHO, it's always the same thing :
With great power comes great responsibility, the people proved they cannot handle the responsibility and yet the "free" market will keep on pushing new technology until it all collapses.

Well if we are really too stupid to see this coming and correct course then yes we will collapse.
To me it doesn't change the game fundamentally : adapt and survive. Or don't :)
The universe won't care, only you know what you have to lose and can decide to do something about it.
Or not.

It would be disappointing sure, but I have been way past that for a long time already ;)
 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
I just finished the show about his capture on Netflix and began re-reading some of his manifesto. If he'd targeted banks and tech corporation offices when they were empty, Fight Club style, then he'd possibly be seen as a sort of Guy Fawkes-type antihero. He ruined that possibly legacy, and the legitimacy of the good points he makes about consumerism etc, when he decided to actually kill random innocent people. Not even the Bill Gates' of the world, but just people who worked in computer repair shops and stuff.
 

VNvet

Kingfisher
Teedub said:
I just finished the show about his capture on Netflix and began re-reading some of his manifesto. If he'd targeted banks and tech corporation offices when they were empty, Fight Club style, then he'd possibly be seen as a sort of Guy Fawkes-type antihero. He ruined that possibly legacy, and the legitimacy of the good points he makes about consumerism etc, when he decided to actually kill random innocent people. Not even the Bill Gates' of the world, but just people who worked in computer repair shops and stuff.

He did have very poor target selection...

Suspiciously poor target selection.

He did everything possible to make his good idea look terrible, and he was involved in CIA MK-Ultra stuff at Harvard.

Two red flags:
>MK-Ultra
>Harvard

I'm skeptical about Ted. He might have been an MK-Ultra op; he might have been a plain old op from the start that is currently chilling on some beach in Mexico. No one would recognize a clean shaven Ted!

The logistics don't matter anyway - everything about this sounds suspicious.

I'll quote MusicForThePiano's earlier post:

MusicForThePiano said:
This was also an earlier move to discredit those who would question technology. Go read books on computers and programming languages and the gateway to the computer age, you will understand that there was a huge push for this "progress" and "advancement" by technocrats whose progeny are holding the reins today, when we were doing just fine in the steampunk days.

Many computer experts believed in building a "tower of babylon" similar to the one from biblical lore. They partially succeeded.

Everything is set up to take a fall so that power is consolidated in the hands of a few and the rest are controlled. This is why its important to stay at least ten steps ahead of modern day software / hardware. Ted was an MK Ultra expendable, and he was used for a great purpose: to discredit those who would question the rising surge of technological invasions.

Now we all have dumbphones and lethal smart meters and all our lives are in this spider's web of the cloud (well most of ours are). Hegelian Dialectics to the nth degree.
 
Top