Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

WARNING: RAMBLING, PHILOSOPHY, AND OPINIONMONGERING AHEAD

I have to say that I find it more than a little funny that we're basing big predictions about long-term economic growth on 3-month periods not living up to expectations.

Short-term thinking is the best sort of thinking, as everyone knows

Exactly, yuro response to demographics is the best short term thinking

Keep making bombs cos it's the kids of the future who'll get fucked the most lol

To be honest, I don't see immigration as a solution to demographic transition, but I also don't see it as a real problem unless it actually causes overload. Like, I guess it depends on what you see the issue as being with fewer young folks, whether you see it as being bad in and of itself because the country/ethno-nation-state/culture-language group is decling, or whether you see it as bad primarily because our economic and government support structures are designed around continuous growth and can't support elderly populations without young taxpayers (I'm absolutely certain there's enough money to go around and a lot of it happens to be located in the upper echelons of society, mind you).

It definitely seems to me like positing immigration as a solution to declining fertility rates is missing the point/not really viable long-term for three reasons, essentially.
 A. Demographic transition comes for all, and as underdeveloped countries develop, their fertility rates will fall and have been falling, so all you're doing is redistributing population, essentially, without necessarily fixing the core problem (if one views it as such, and not everyone does; anti-natalism is an...odd...philosophy, but it exists, and then overpopulation is sortof a concern)
B. If the best and brightest, or simply most able or what-have you, are emigrating from their native countries to rich countries in search of opportunity, that's basically evaporative cooling of those populations, given how much of ability is genetic, and the fact that the environment is almost by definition not great in underdeveloped nations. Which means they'll remain less developed longer because the people who would be pushing them to modernity are all leaving.
 On a similar note, though one I'm even less certain of (as it could just be luck, not ability, deciding which people can emigrate, for that first bit), from what I am given to understand, 'pressure valves' in organic/biologically based phenomena, tend to be overall not great. So basically from what I remember in a lot of countries the sheer amount of kids people end up having is difficult to support, which makes it difficult to get out of poverty, which makes it difficult not to have kids, and so on in a self-sustaining bad times. Now, I'm not certain whether having an outlet for that extra population is a good thing or not, since you're usually getting adults, not kids, so it's not actually helping anyone with that issue, at least, though more resources overall may be available as a result for those remaining, but it also might just prolong the issue by keeping it stable/from being forced to develop. This is basically wild speculation, though.
 C. This feels like the hardest to explain bit...so, a country isn't quite just the people who technically are citizens of it. It is at least that, certainly, but it seems to me sometimes like people have this idea that potential citizens and existing citizens are the same thing, if that makes sense. But immigration solves the technicalities of the problem, the symptoms, without addressing the core or the root of it. The issue isn't 'we have fewer people than we want, so add more people', after all. Again, there's nothing particularly wrong with immigration, it's just...the reason we consider it a problem is that it affects the people who live in the country. Not because our statistic isn't as high as it could be. Bringing in people who didn't used to live in the country as a solution seems like one of those solutions like...I'm trying to find a good analogy. It's optimizing for the wrong variable. It's missing the reason we dislike it. The best thing I can maybe think of is if you're trying to help someone feel better when they're ill or depressed or something, and they see that you're worried about them so they just stop talking about it around you. They've solved the surface issue of you being worried about them, but you didn't want them to stop telling you, you wanted them to recover/be well.

I mean, obvious solution is to make it less of a burden to have children, which is an economic issue concerning graduate and just graduated-age adults. Also to not put societal expectations on people in either direction; don't have a pressure to ignore family for career (men are affected more than women by taking paternity leave and time off for children(my guess why is that women are the ones expected to do it, so if a man does it it's weirder to people), don't keep people out of the workplace if they don't want to be. More options for people; we can learn from the past without simply repeating it. Two-income households aren't much richer than single-income households were, if at all, thanks to the various costs for having children without someone continuously taking care of them and housework and another car and competition for housing in good neighborhoods, but they're much more fiscally unstable because they don't have the same flexibility that being able to put another person to work without needing to gives you, so it's harder to react to financial difficulties effectively without people burning out or getting so stressed that it cascades. Doesn't mean we should kick people out of workforce, just means we should take note of the fact that economic growth is still fairly good (especially if you take into account aging populations) while technological redundancy affects more and more people, and use it advantageously rather than screaming and crying about it.

What kinds of ability are inheritable, in your opinion? How do you plan to cope with racism if you spread that idea?

[Helgoland]

Come on, don't turn a discussion about biology into an ideological one. 'Is intelligence inheritable?' is not the same as 'Are some people just naturally less valuable than others?'

Have a Nature article.

[Sheb]

Plus, you can have genetically inheritable intelligence without having difference between races, if the distribution of alleles is roughly the same between groups. Plus, you don't have to think intelligence to be genetic for it to be inherited:smart parents will be able to better educate their kids when they are young.

[hector13]

Not necessarily.

[Rolepgeek]

What kinds of ability are inheritable, in your opinion? How do you plan to cope with racism if you spread that idea?

Most science finds that a crapton of stuff is like 50% genetic and 50% non-shared environment. There's some variance in that, of course, and happily there are still certain low-hanging fruits and the like, but for example, from what I know, happiness is about 50-60% genetic. Another 30% of it was community, and 10% or so was money (once beyond poverty level) and the various factors in one's life that various sources say will make you happy. I think the last little bit is maybe health?

As for how I cope with racism, it's very simple. I don't give a shit whether someone is more naturally inclined towards whatever-the-fuck on a statistical scale, because you can't apply aggregate probability data to individual data points effectively, it's much too noisy for the one thing and for the second it's not that hard to just look at the individual in question. People are people, and thus worthy of respect, regardless of genetics. Meritocracy is great for choosing who leads stuff so things get done effectively. Doesn't mean I think people should be rewarded because they intrinsically deserve to be for ability. Effort, perhaps, but stick-to-itiveness is often genetic too >.> Still, getting the incentives in the system right is basically the best, most reliable way to create better societies, although it's hard to shift power away from existing movers and shakers, since they obviously want to remain in power and because they have power have the means to do so. Whether you want to hep the world or just help yourself, amassing power/resources is essentially the first/best thing to do so you can enact everything else you want to.

Plus, you can have genetically inheritable intelligence without having difference between races, if the distribution of alleles is roughly the same between groups. Plus, you don't have to think intelligence to be genetic for it to be inherited:smart parents will be able to better educate their kids when they are young.

Well...actually parenting style and the like tend to have negligible impact on people once they're adults. And it's hard to find education practices that have meaningful results beyond like a year or two. Technical knowledge, sure, but it's hard to just make kids smarter without actually affecting their biological development.

[Sheb]

Yeah, although in the context of brain exodus due to emigration, you can have deleterious effect even if smarts isn't heritable. The richer and more educted will go first (the one that could have given their kids a good education). Plus, other positive values can also get evaporated out (the most enterprising people would go first for example).

[Loud Whispers]

Here's a terrible EU joke

What do Dutch prostitutes and roads have in common

http://www.euroslag.com/

Plus, you can have genetically inheritable intelligence without having difference between races, if the distribution of alleles is roughly the same between groups. Plus, you don't have to think intelligence to be genetic for it to be inherited:smart parents will be able to better educate their kids when they are young.

famalam you got the narrative wrong
race don't exist, so there can't be differences in distribution between shit that's nonexistent

[Rolepgeek]

If you tell the average American liberal that they will look at you with very annoyed face

Is that what you've heard from EU liberal media?

Though there are recognizable genetic differences (or tendencies) in different populations. Most people of East Asian descent have a mutation which affects the sorts of sweat glands they have and basically means they don't get as much BO. Most Caucasian/people of European descent have a mutation that reduces musical ability, which is hypothesized to be why a lot of European languages are so much less tonal than other languages.

I find this sort of stuff fascinating, but it doesn't mean that one person's more valuable than another because genetics.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah they're more valuable depending on how they use those genes

Someone with 10/10 genes who just eats mcdonalds all day is a waste

Also pretty much, no race here

[Rolepgeek]

Yeah they're more valuable depending on how they use those genes

Someone with 10/10 genes who just eats mcdonalds all day is a waste

Also pretty much, no race here

Huh. Well, it is (or was) a lot more homogenous there, I guess, so they can get away with it.

I do have to say I find it funny every time the college I'm going to go to requires/displays/does something resembling what anti-PC and anti-SJW people always complain about. Way less common than Thu make it out to be, but when it happens it sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Loud Whispers]

Huh. Well, it is (or was) a lot more homogenous there, I guess, so they can get away with it.

m8 u wanna fite london is most diverse in the world

scientists come here and are all "oh fuck, too much diversity, I can't handle this shit DEPLETE IT"
Oh wait, just looked it up:

"Based on the assumption that modern England is more cosmopolitan, higher genetic diversity in the ancient sample was unexpected," Hoelzel said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. "The expectation is that the gene pool should be more mixed."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-genetics-idUSL0131959120070801

Oh shit, immigrants took my diversity

I do have to say I find it funny every time the college I'm going to go to requires/displays/does something resembling what anti-PC and anti-SJW people always complain about. Way less common than Thu make it out to be, but when it happens it sticks out like a sore thumb.

What's funny about it, that's reality for the West

Let Rome fall

[Rolepgeek]

Cuz folks overreact to it, and cuz' it'll come out of nowhere while being so poorly done that I have to laugh.

And if it were reality for the West, we wouldn't have bathroom bill bullshit brashly brought before the public and passed.

Also cosmopolitanism doesn't bring diversity it just brings more cosmopolitans, who would never marry or have a fling with uncultured swine.

Rome didn't fall in a day, and no empire lasts forever. Sometimes not being the best just means everywhere else is catching up.

That said I do believe that the idea of liberal values causing the end of the world (in fact I only ever see you complain about a few very specific aspects, mostly related to family and race, but gay rights are still liberal thing, not everyone thing, in US; look how long it took to just make gay marriage legal everywhere here) is an overreaction.

[Loud Whispers]

Cuz folks overreact to it, and cuz' it'll come out of nowhere while being so poorly done that I have to laugh.

Doesn't matter if it's poorly done if it's the only thing being done

And if it were reality for the West, we wouldn't have bathroom bill bullshit brashly brought before the public and passed.

What does that mean? Germany will be fine because the USA is passing toilet legislation?

Also cosmopolitanism doesn't bring diversity it just brings more cosmopolitans, who would never marry or have a fling with uncultured swine.

Cosmopolitans bring diversity because they without fail support mass immigration in order to rub diversity in the face of the uncultured swine; they do not marry, and thus lacking children, must assume posts in education so as to educate the uncultured swine in the country who do have kids

Rome didn't fall in a day, and no empire lasts forever. Sometimes not being the best just means everywhere else is catching up.

Who gives a shit about primacy when you have sovereignty, when you give away sovereignty because you want to be a shallow globalists, congrats your civilization and the legacy that lives beyond your crumbling empire is dead
I'm surprised you'd think I'd support Eurocrat attempts at selling out several European civilizations just to have one shot at breaking US primacy; fight stupid battles, win stupid prizes
gg suicide has been achieved

That said I do believe that the idea of liberal values causing the end of the world

I don't agree with you, liberal values cause the end of the liberal world, because the liberal world creates progressives
2016 has been the best current year for everyone else, and things are only getting better

(in fact I only ever see you complain about a few very specific aspects, mostly related to family and race, but gay rights are still liberal thing, not everyone thing, in US; look how long it took to just make gay marriage legal everywhere here) is an overreaction.

b8

[Loud Whispers]

Let Rome fall

LW, you may have got amnesia. Do you recall a person called Attila the Hun? And, later, the Ottomans?

My name is Ozymandias, just fuck my Kings up fam

[Silverthrone]

Unrelated; this year's rendition of Last Night of the Proms.

It was absolutely fabulous, as usual. Great fun. Of course, this year, there was an unusual amount of EU flags on show in the audience. Predictably, it caused a small wake of whining, it seems. But of course they would be there, partly because some of the audience would like to display their support for the union and partly (mostly, I imagine) to take the piss. Which is a grand old tradition in that event. Hence the dress-up act during Rule, Britannia. Getting genuinely upset over it is really missing the point of the whole show.

But y'know, teh fleergs in the audience are always an exorcise in missing the point. Someone spots the foreign flags and goes "but this is a BRITISH event, what are those doing there!". Particularly when the Germans show up, which is all sorts of hilarious, considering how close Britain and Germany actually are, rather like how the United States and France are pretty similar and thus can't stand each other. Yeah, it's Britain's Big Night, but it's still for fun. And how, exactly, would one celebrate Britishness without an international element in it? It's part of the charm, part of the appreciation. And, of course, nice and traditional affectionate British piss-taking, a trait you'd think a nationalist worth his salt would recognise.