[Truth Teller]

I've said for a long time that a EMP burst or the destruction of the US power grid would send this country back to the Renaissance with alarming speed. So many things are based on the ability to use and exploit electricity that thinking of a world without it is scary.

[Nemencine]

@ SCORPION.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Ok, I did a more thorough reading of Nemencine's post, and I find even more to disagree with. But again I commend Nemencine for putting the effort into a thought (and discussion) provoking post, even though I don't agree with his conclusions.

The fundamental problem I have with his post is the underlying idea that techno-scientific advances are going to create wondrously positive benefits for mankind in the near future.

No. That is not the point of my post. In fact, i mentioned genetic black swans and how these scientific advances will results in women being more irresponsible. that is not utopian.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Nemencine earlier disagreed with my labeling this idea as a form of scientific/techno utopianism, but I don't see how the honest reader could use any other term, especially since the argument is being presented directly in opposition to "manosphere dystopianism".

#1. This is a strawman argument: you want to provide critical analysis of utopianism, as such, you feel compelled to characterize my post as utopianism so that you can advance your analysis. Again, my post is not utopianism. In fact, the general tone of my post is depressing(competitive dating market, demolishing of paternity tests, removal of evolutionary constraints on women's behaviour, increase imbalance/stratification of society based on genetic gifts, massive racial population shifts as lat am and asian countries pick white genes for their babies, etc.). That is not utopian.

#2. Just because something challenges a certain vision of dystopianism(manosphere version) doesnt automatically makes it utopian. It is not a black/white position. A cyberpunk dystopian(Gibbon's neuromancer) may challenge the views of a political dystopian(orwell's 1984) who in turn may challenge the views of an economic dystopian(Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged).

#3. Just because i dont think the world will descend into a "dark ages" because of financial collapse, doesnt mean i think everything is going to be roses and rainbows.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Clearly the post is making the argument that science has miraculous things in store for humanity, and Nemencine presents these advances as running counter to any dystopian trends.

#1. No. There is nothing miraculous about genetic dating profile that further stiffens the competition in mate selection. There is nothing miraculous about women's using science to cheat in an evolutionary game. There is nothing miraculous about abolishing paternity tests. I merely pointed out scientific discoveries that runs counter to manosphere's dystopian views. That in itself does not mean i do not see the dystopian nature of these scientific discoveries, i do, and i pointed out some of them in the posts.

#2. And no, i did not present those ideas as running counter to ANY dystopian trends, just the manospheric dystopian views.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

.... Ergo, they are by definition utopian in nature, since they work in direct opposition to dystopian aspects of present day society.

#1. No, they are not utopian in nature simply because they are against manophere's dystopian views. Manosphere dystopian views are among many different kinds of dystopian views.

#2. Manosphere dystopian views is not the only "...dystopian aspects of present day society." You are basically claiming that the manosphere dystopian views is the only dystopian view, as such, if you are against this, therefore you are utopian. Not only is manosphere view not the only dystopian view, being against dystopian view doesnt necessarily makes you an utopian. it is not black and white.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

...
I reject techno-utopianism for several reasons. First of all, zoom out from our current point in time and consider the possibility that we are currently, in fact, living in a techno-utopia. By the standards of the vast majority of humans who ever walked the Earth, our current science and technology are literally unimaginably advanced. We must remember that airplanes are little more than a century old. Antibiotics, less than a century. Computers, less than half a century. The internet, a quarter century. And less than a hundred years ago many people didn't even have electricity in their homes.
The point is, who's to say we aren't already in the scientific/techno utopia? In comparison to most of history we definitely are, at least. Modern science and technology have made mankind more powerful than ever before. But has that created a perfect society? No. In fact, in many regards we are much worse off than we were before.

#1. I am not advocating techno-utopianism. in fact, my post has a slight bent of techno-dystopianism to it, giving all the negative ramification for the dating market that those scientific advances will cause..

#2. You are making the argument that the present age could be consider a techno-utopia based on the level of relative technological development in comparison to the past age.

This argument creates a conundrum if we follow that logic to its conclusion. What do i mean?

1.0. The past has technological development factor "X".
1.1. The present has technological development factor "2X"
1.2. Since the differential between the past and present is "2";

You are thinking, scorpion, that this "2" differential means that 1.1(present) is a techno-utopia and 1.0(past) is "man is happier/spiritual".

The problem with this reasoning is that it can be applied this way:

2.0. The present has technological development factor "2X"
2.1. The future has technological development factor "4X"
2.2. Since the differential between present and future is "2",
ergo, 2.2 is a techno-utopia and 2.1 is ""man is happier/spiritual".

However, 2.0 is also 1.1 = the present day and age. That means, from one perspective, the present is ""man is happier/spiritual"
"; from another perspective, it is "techno-utopia". So, which one is it?

One can also apply the same line of reasoning to the past...and use it to characterize the past as a "techno-utopia" in relation to the super-past.... ad infinitum.

So, first off, i am not advocating techno-utopia; secondly, the structure of the argument you use to assert the possibility of the present being techno-utopia can be turn on itself.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

This is because science and technology are double-edged swords that can inflict as much harm as good (i.e. the long range bomber and the passenger jet, the nuclear missile and the nuclear power plant, the internet and the surveillance state, etc...). Technological progress is NOT an unmitigated good. There are always prices to pay, but these prices are not always obvious at first glance. Usually we don't understand the implications that follow technology until after the fact.

I completely agree with this position. In fact, in a post on genetic engineering i said the following:

(07-08-2013 05:30 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

....Scientists should never fall for the arrogance of thinking we've solved everything and therefore we can start creating perfect babies... Every single time in scientific history that has always proven false. We know soo little.....We are simply too marvelous a creation of biology.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

For a modern example everyone here will understand, look at smartphones. What if I told you in 1994 that in twenty years everyone would be carrying around a device that had access to all the world's information and which was also a telephone, camera, video recorder, music player, television and text messaging device? You'd be amazed, right? You'd think that was simply incredible. But would you immediately realize that the ubiquity of such devices would completely transform the social dynamics between young men and women? Of course not. That would not become clear until later, after the devices had permeated the culture. The impact would only be felt after it was too late to change or prevent it. So we can see how a device which would have been considered utopian a generation ago carried with it negative aspects which harm society. These negative aspects were unknown and unconsidered when the device was merely imagined. Once it went from the abstract to the concrete, however, those negative aspects manifested themselves. The point being, we can't know the drawbacks of any new science or technology until it becomes a reality, at which point it is too late to turn back the clock.

I completely agree with all this.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

The examples of new science Nemencine presented in his post are quite worrisome, in my view, because even prior to their implementation it is clear they would have deep and profound impacts on society (note: I am ignoring any skepticism that these advances are not actually close and granting the possibility that they could occur within the next fifty years). .

France and UK already carried out successful genetic engineering of little children to cure them of SCID.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Smartphones and airplanes are one thing, and nuclear weapons another, but Nemencine's main examples are another level entirely: he is talking about the genetic engineering of mankind. This would be by far the most profound technological change in human history, simply because by virtue of adopting it we would cease to be human as we know it. There is literally nothing that introduces more possible harm to humanity than this idea.

I agree completely. The FACT of reality is that France and UK have successfully genetically engineered little children to cure them of SCID.

So, the science and implementation is already here, the only thing that remains is perfecting it(and the bioethics laws)

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

This is essentially the idea of transhumanism. It is mankind making himself into a god through his control and mastery of the physical world. It is as alluring and intoxicating an idea as can be conceived. It is also the absolute height of hubris and human arrogance.

Again, i dont disagree with this at all, in fact to quote myself again:

(07-08-2013 05:30 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

....Scientists should never fall for the arrogance of thinking we've solved everything and therefore we can start creating perfect babies... Every single time in scientific history that has always proven false. We know soo little.....We are simply too marvelous a creation of biology.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

It would, unquestionably in my mind, bring about the ruination if not total extinction of humanity before long. It is simply the story of Icarus writ large.

The Chinese do not care. They are busy tampering with human genetics and collecting gene profiles of high IQ people.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

The reality is that utopia is impossible in this world regardless of how much science or technology we have. Our human nature is a fallen one, we are imperfect creatures, and no amount of genetic engineering or technology can change that. The problem is intrinsic. It is spiritual. No amount of material prosperity or mastery over the material world can remedy spiritual defects.

#1. again, I wasnt making an argument for utopia.

#2. You are making a declarative statement about human nature, its limits and scope -- I am not sure that in itself is not a form of hubris.

(07-28-2014 02:08 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Paradoxically, we are much more likely to understand this fact in the absence of material abundance. Our ancestors, who had much less knowledge and understanding of science and technology, had a much greater understanding of the primacy of the spiritual over the material. It is our subsequent mastery of the material realm that has blinded us to the spiritual aspects of man which are so important. This is the major reason that modern man is so generally miserable and spiritually dead despite his material prosperity (and why generally the most materially abundant among us are also the most spiritually impoverished, i.e. drug/suicide problems with celebrities).

Diagnosing the root of society ills is outside my field of expertise. as such, i cannot comment on the above.

regards,

Nemencine
.

[Nemencine]

@ travelerkai @ samseau @zelcorpion @ dog

@TRAVELERKAI


My point about data storage with satellites is this:

In the event of a "dark age", what is preventing the elite from launching rockets carrying massive data storage computer into space, the same way they launched satellites into space? The entire length of the international space station is one american football field, the height is 205miles(330km). All that equipment was launched into space one at a time. In the event of a "dark age", what is preventing the elite from doing the same with data storage computers the length of an american football field/the height of 205miles?



Launched it into space/moon/mars like you launch a satellite and have the data storage broadcast the data back to earth on a repeating loop.

I brought up the voyager 1 and voyager 2 satellites longevity in space to make this point: that they were launched into deep space in 1977 that is 37 years ago. and yet, they are still transmitting data. That means that the outdated technology of 1977 can still be functional for roughly 4 decades(40 years), that means, the 2014 technology(that will build this space data storage) could possibly function for a century(100years)-- thereby outlasting the "dark ages". Launch multiple of them into space in all sorts of directions. This will preserve the knowledge of human civilization. human civilization is anti-fragile.



@ SAMSEAU

(07-28-2014 10:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Rich people forming scientific communities may happen, or what is more likely is that rich people will be hunted down when money-hungry governments start to go broke.

I am more inclined to believe that the elite will form communities/territories and consolidate power...yes, some will be hunted down. In a failed state like somalia, based on the little i have read about it, it is run by various warlords(elite) who use the unwashed masses to do their biddings.

(07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Let me be clear on the topic of race.....

I read your above comments, but i am afraid to say that my knowledge of sociology is not strong enough to adequately comment on the intersection of race, science, innovation and culture.





@ ZELCORPION

(07-28-2014 12:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

It is a minor point - genetic engineering after birth is highly limited and will likely remain that way.

Bubble boy was cured via bone marrow transplant and subsequent changes resulting from that operation. The modifications were miniscule. That healing procedure is being used currently for a wide variety of diseases without getting the stamp of genetherapy.

Respectfully, it is a major point. The modification wasnt miniscule, it was substantial. and yes, it is gene therapy. That healing procedure has only one name and only one name: gene therapy. Here is a primer on gene therapy.
Here is the medical/scientific publication on how they treat SCID. They use bone-marrow because bone marrow manufactures your leukocytes and other immunological factors in your body, which SCID destroys.

(07-28-2014 12:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I just don't think that you can alter the genetic structure of IQ, race, longevity or the entire complex immune system after birth that easily.

It is not the question of maybe it is easy or not; it is a question of should it even be done. Scientific breakthroughs are never easy in the beginning, then they perfect it. so, it is not a question of maybe it is easy or not easy now, it is a question of bioethics.

(07-28-2014 12:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Those currently available "gene"-therapies, which hardly merit the name are no proof.

Here again is the definition of what scientists call gene therapy.

(07-28-2014 12:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Genes are activated and deactivated non-stop as proven by new studies through factors of lifestyle and diet.

That is not gene therapy. Gene therapy is something else. Again, here is a primer on gene therapy.




@DOG

(07-28-2014 01:56 PM)dog Wrote:  

While I'm not sure of the feasibility of some of the technology listed (animal tests have a history of not translating directly into human results) ...

True, successful animal testing doesnt mean successful human testing. You can have an anticancer drug works wonders in rats, that doesnt mean it will work wonders in humans.

The situation with NR2B and PEPCK-C is somewhat different because they are evolutionary conserved gene upregulation experiments. That means, that gene is already doing what it was doing in both humans and rats, they just increase its capabilities. Like nitrous in a car engine boosting its power.

Even more important, is that those two genes(NR2B and PEPCK-C) are homologous/conserved in rats and humans. That means, they do the same thing in both humans and rats and kinda look similar. So, the next question is, if we upregulate those genes in rats and yield a certain results; what makes us think it *might* yield the same results in humans?

Well, there is a precedence. The case of Liam Hoekstra. He has a mutation in his muscle gene that makes him super strong. That muscle gene does the same thing in human that it does in rats. Just like NR2B and PEPCK-C does the same thing in rats that they both do in humans.

So, before scientist even know of the existence of Liam Hoekstra the human mutant; they've already isolated that muscle gene in rats and mutated it to produce super strong rats.

The fact that the same gene in rat and human(Liam Hoekstra) acts the same way when mutated -- resulting in super strong rat and super strong Liam Hoekstra establish a form of precedence. This precedence strongly suggests that if a gene is very evolutionary conserved and does the exact same thing in humans and rats. And if this gene is mutated in rat to do something, it is likely that if we mutate it in humans, it will do the same exact same thing. Not 100% guaranteed of course. But there is a decent likelihood.

.

[soup]

(07-27-2014 03:29 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

# 6. INNOVATION AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION


In music too: great Jazz musicians like Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, were producing innovating works during the Great Depression. I am sure, thedude3737, TravelerKai and Feisbook Control can discuss jazz/jazz history in more depth than me.

Musicians were able to make money selling records back then, and musicianship- being able to play an instrument well, was valued more at that time than it is now.

Now that the industry has collapsed, a lot musicians will be forced to go back to what they had been doing for centuries making money on the side as prostitutes or selling drugs or whatever.

When 3d printing hits big, than I bet a lot of manufacturing will crumble and we are going to to see massive civil unrest. In the same way that people can illegally download someones music, we are going to be able download any kind of designs (everything from forks to houses and even organs) and make them in our homes. The concept of intellectual property will evaporate.

Our entire way of thinking about money and value is going to have to change.

[soup]

(07-27-2014 04:43 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

Perhaps, it wasnt very clear. I use the 98/2 ratio to illustrate a point that the number of men that can reproduce will diminish significantly due to genetic profiling. How much? i dont know. The 98/2 ratio is to make a point about increase competition in the dating market due to genetic profiling.

Nemencine

It won't be about that ratio because by the time all this stuff becomes truly viable, scientists will probably be able to essentially program a "perfect" DNA and won't need male or even female humans to make produce a new baby.

[soup]

[soup]

Scorpion's big post in page 2 rings very true.

We are not content with the tech advances, and a lot of people are actually losing jobs because of things like the internet.

About us being fallen..

Let's move it past just humanity.

What does nature want? What does the universe want?

From what I know of how things work, there is a constant cycling between good and bad.

What if we can weed out this "fallen" aspect of our nature? What it would mean to even be able to do that? On a basic societal level, it would mean genetically weeding out future psychopaths. Would it be possible to remove that kind of element on a larger than human scale? Side note- I think maybe there's some evolutionary reason for why evil exists, otherwise it would have be weeded out by now. Either that, or we are in the process of getting rid of it.

[Seth_Rose]

If Islam continues to grow at the pace it is, none of this will ever come to fruition.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(07-28-2014 09:15 PM)soup Wrote:  

On a basic societal level, it would mean genetically weeding out future psychopaths.

The only problem is that those deciding whom to have removed are psychopaths themselves - not only as in the current state of affairs (think of SPLC, for example), but perhaps theoretically as well. Deciding which other lives to extinguish has an inherent element of psychopathy to it, making this a very vicious circle.

[Glaucon]

After reading about how real gene splicing and gene manipulation works in the lab, I just laugh about the predictions of manipulation the human genes.
We can not even manipulate the genes of a potato right. We know next to zero how genes works together.

[Duke Castile]

Wait wait wait.

Doesn't this genetic selection issue work both ways?

The man with alpha genes may be highly sought after but that doesn't mean he wants to be with all those 6s and 7s. If anything, this will give him greater access to 9s and 10s as he was meant to be with.

It seems like this will just make things a little more equal 5s with 5s and etc.

That would be a huge improvement for most men since they're usually stuck in the USA with girls many points below them.

[soup]

Handsome creepy, it wouldn't be extinguishing lives.. It would be shutting off genes that would make someone psychopathic.. It could actually save them and other people's lives via prevention, not killing someone who already exists like they do with the death penalty which is psychopathic.

The dystopian manosphere world that is most relevant to a lot of guys is balding. Why can't they fix this problem already? Isn't technology accelerating fast enough to do something real about it?

[TravelerKai]

(07-28-2014 07:55 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

@ travelerkai @ samseau @zelcorpion @ dog

@TRAVELERKAI


My point about data storage with satellites is this:

In the event of a "dark age", what is preventing the elite from launching rockets carrying massive data storage computer into space, the same way they launched satellites into space? The entire length of the international space station is one american football field, the height is 205miles(330km). All that equipment was launched into space one at a time. In the event of a "dark age", what is preventing the elite from doing the same with data storage computers the length of an american football field/the height of 205miles?



Launched it into space/moon/mars like you launch a satellite and have the data storage broadcast the data back to earth on a repeating loop.

I brought up the voyager 1 and voyager 2 satellites longevity in space to make this point: that they were launched into deep space in 1977 that is 37 years ago. and yet, they are still transmitting data. That means that the outdated technology of 1977 can still be functional for roughly 4 decades(40 years), that means, the 2014 technology(that will build this space data storage) could possibly function for a century(100years)-- thereby outlasting the "dark ages". Launch multiple of them into space in all sorts of directions. This will preserve the knowledge of human civilization. human civilization is anti-fragile.

The elite have no cohesion (due to their sheer greed) to share or give their intellectual property to others for safe keeping. These people are in the business to make money. Not make friends with mankind! Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. being defense contractors have to give the US govt copies of the blueprints, but no oil company or Cisco will share their patents with the US govt. No law firm is going to give the US govt all of their contracts for safe keeping. The govt. at this time would not even take those items.

You should come to Houston and look at the International Space Station exhibit. They may even have the stuff online. There is no room in there for storage arrays of the magnitude you are talking about. The space station was built way before the latest modern datacenters were created. That datacenter they built in Utah would be the only sufficient place to hold all that shit. I'm sure Moscow is aiming a special ICBM that can tunnel a bunker at that exact site because it is a high value strategic target. One of the first rules of warfare is to cut off your enemies lines of communication. They may even be aim a missile at the international space station regardless of the Russian staff inside it. Satellites are cold and that is a good thing, but it takes more money to run storage infrastructure in places like that.

The Airforce has satellites that have missiles inside them. I think that is an open secret. For my sake I hope it is, haha. The Russians might have them as well but I do not know. I do know that their s-400 and s-1000 systems are designed to intercept nuclear missiles from space. Among foreign policy experts and military experts, it is postulated that if a war broke out, thousands of satellites would get destroyed very early on. In fact, the US govt. has been working on strategic satellite defense. Think about it. Satellites give birds eye views, GPS, and other logistical support to the military on the ground. Do you think they want to whip out compasses like back in ww2 again? Spec Ops guys can handle it, but what about all the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines that constant rely on computers to move planes, tanks, artillery, MREs, blankets, FOB materials, jeeps, etc.? Civilian ones that help with your GPS in the car would get shot down too or hacked by the enemy.

The thing is that the strongest enemies know what you have and where it is. Putting more stuff in space, where you do not have the best defense for it, is riskier than keeping in on the ground, deep underground in Utah, surrounded by mountains and harsh land. Only an ICBM can touch that. They like those odds. You would too.

If you play RTS games, would you put your Research Center that gives your units upgrades in the front of your base? No you put them in the back.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-29-2014 09:44 AM)soup Wrote:  

Handsome creepy, it wouldn't be extinguishing lives.. It would be shutting off genes that would make someone psychopathic.. It could actually save them and other people's lives via prevention, not killing someone who already exists like they do with the death penalty which is psychopathic.

The dystopian manosphere world that is most relevant to a lot of guys is balding. Why can't they fix this problem already? Isn't technology accelerating fast enough to do something real about it?

Baldness for those who can afford it will be gone soon. They already managed to grow hair in a petri-dish. Soon only the poor will be bald. But it will likely be more expensive than a breast-implant, since they have to grow your own hair artificially and then transplant it. But it goes the same way teeth and boobs went - cash can buy it.

[soup]

Whoever can invent a baldness cure that actually works and would be available to all men would make far more money I believe than just offering it to those that have a lot of money.

Like if rogaine actually worked. It would be a billions of dollars industry.

[Youngback]

I enjoyed reading this thread very much. However I believe OP is incorrect in most all of his conjectures.

You say repeatedly that you like to base your predictions on COLD HARD facts and scientific truth. I will agree that when dealing with any sort of guesswork there should be primarily empirical data to work off of, but you are relying solely on logistical information to predict the outcome of an inherently irrational set of human behaviors. I noticed you declined to reply to someone because they were making sociological points. I would argue that in predicting which of the emerging technologies become accepted and normal, you must account for human idiosyncrasies, psychology, and sociology. You cannot get into predicting which of these technologies will become prevalent without accounting for the filter of human imperfections and abstract variables they must pass through to become accepted by humans. In other words, simply because you can prove these technologies exist, doesn't mean you can prove they will without a doubt have any meaningful effect on humans as a species, or as we as a civilization.

I appreciate your undying adherence to the factual, but I think you're missing half the picture. You cannot argue that all these advances you present will effect us in the future simply because they exist, or because they're significant. You're missing a host of cultural, financial, and behavioral variables. You could list plenty more unknowns.

Another thing I noticed is that you mentioned financial collapse a few times. What bothers me is that you relate the future of our financial stability to past collapses such as the Great Depression. Again, you are not accounting for a wide range of variables. We cannot say for certain any future financial collapse will bear any resemblance whatsoever to the conditions present during the Great Depression. To assume innovation will not be stifled during the upcoming collapses only because it wasn't 100 years ago is a shaky platform.

I have to go to work and I'm on a phone so this will be shorter than id like but I will revisit later.

Something else that kept coming to mind is the nature of the monetary system and how it relates to technology. I'm sure you know this but our governments money is loaned with interest from the federal reserve. Not to get off topic, I believe you cannot separate these predictions of the future of technology without looking at what fuels the tech itself. That being money. as we all know the US has run up an exorbitant tab. Trillions in debt. The accumulation of debt has coincided with our advances in technology. You must have money to pay very smart people to come up with the latest in whatever field it may be. The materials are expensive, the tools are expensive, the research is expensive. Do we just assume the US can saddle itself with infinite debt? Perhaps the private sector could take over. Regardless of who is at the helm of innovation, the problem remains; the type of technology advances you discuss rely on the idea of endless capital, and endless energy. Endless energy seems more feasible as time passes, but it is not certain. Endless capital is a serious problem at this point as every dollar in circulation is owed back to the fed with interest. Not only that but the value of a dollar is decreasing rapidly. Combine those two factors and you see how unlikely it is that these types of fantastical, sci-fi-esque technologies will take a prevalent role in our society anytime soon.

I simply cannot believe the trends you describe will see any extrapolation when I begin to think of all of the obstacles they face in seeing widespread use. From a scientists perspective I can see how convincing OPs post would be. But to say with such certainty that any of these will find a spot in civilization is unfounded and unrealistic. COLD HARD FACTS are not enough for such certain conjecture in the face of the vast complexity of the human meta-mind. You must incorporate other variables.

At this point, the closest I can get to agreeing with you is that yes, perhaps there will be some implementation of these technologies. But if you look at the current political climate, there is deep corruption in the upper levels of the hierarchy and the power they have come to wield is unprecedented. If you think these guys are going to give John and Jane doe the power to level the playing field with super IQ enhancements and gene optimization you are simply unaware of how things work in the real world. Look at tech now. A lot of the crazy advances are seeing military use an experimentation before it's even announced to the public that it exists. Such has been the case with the internet. If anything, I could see the military attempt to use a lot of this stuff for super soldiers and the populace will get dummed down, marketable versions of them.

Count on the elites or military getting a hold of this stuff before counting on anyone using it to better humankind.

[Giovonny]

(07-29-2014 09:44 AM)soup Wrote:  

shutting off genes that would make someone psychopathic..

Generally speaking, I don't think this can work.

Psychopaths are rarely born.

Most often, they are made.

Made by a horrific childhood or a horrific adulthood or their own delusions of the world.

It isn't so much their genes, it is the way their brains get wired.

[Nemencine]

@ handsome creepy eel @ soup @ fisto @ glaucon



@ SOUP and HANDSOME CREEPY EEL

First off, on psychopaths, there is the issue of nature vs nurture and blank statism versus genetic determinism. My own opinion is that behaviours are both genetic and environmental.

That said, respectfully, i found Soup's idea of genetically profiling and suppressing "psychopaths" to be very disturbing. I think handsome creepy eel is right about his objections to soup proposition.

Thinking about it from game perspective: What is preventing the criminal justice system, with the help of feminist/liberals, from profiling Dark Triad Traits gene traits and suppressing it out of the population? Turning everybody into beta drones? Isnt this the holy grail of feminism?

Fuck that, i will rather take a long drive off a short cliff. I mean, look at the ridiculousness that we have now: microaggression, trigger warnings, bullshite rape accusations, saying a simple "hello" to a random woman is consider street harrassment, misandrist laws left and right, etc.

All that is needed is to first define player traits as "psychopathic", just like they define picking up random woman as "sexual street harrassment".

With Soup's idea the ugly feminists/liberals will want to haunt down every player traits and suppress it in the name of "preventing psychopaths".

It is one thing to genetically profile for good looks, lack of hereditary diseases, higher intelligence, etc.; it is another to start profiling for behavioural traits.....Yes, i think it is a slippery slope that once you start at one end, there is no stopping it. Especially with feminists/liberals: Just look at how far they have taken women's right in the name of equality; Look at how skewed the marriages laws, and Misandrist laws in the name of *preventing* crime against women.

The ugly feminists will haunt down and suppress player traits in the name of "preventing" psychopaths against women.

Soup, i know you mean well; but these things always have serious ramifications. On the surface feminism seems well-intentioned... even communism seems well intention... but look at their ramifications.

For every mutants like Liam Hoesktra that could walk on the very day he was born(yes, his muscles were that strong), and was doing this at 3 years o age(see below picture of him at age 3yrs lifting weights)



There are mutations that can put an extra pair of legs on your chest if things get screwed up.(i am guessing the boy Hox genes get mixed up.)


Here is a video of the asian boy with the "wrong" mutation and have an extra pair of legs growing out of his chest:

So, there is always consequences. Even Liam Hoesktra can potentially develop heart condition, who knows.



@ FISTO

(07-29-2014 04:47 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Wait wait wait.

Doesn't this genetic selection issue work both ways?

The man with alpha genes may be highly sought after but that doesn't mean he wants to be with all those 6s and 7s. If anything, this will give him greater access to 9s and 10s as he was meant to be with.

It seems like this will just make things a little more equal 5s with 5s and etc.

That would be a huge improvement for most men since they're usually stuck in the USA with girls many points below them.

You make good points. It is not going to be a totally one way street, few things ever is. One of the assumptions in my "the next phase of female hypergamy" is that, in comparison to women, men are inherently less discriminatory about where they stick their dick, especially if it is a one night stand.





@ GLAUCON

(07-29-2014 03:55 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

After reading about how real gene splicing and gene manipulation works in the lab, I just laugh about the predictions of manipulation the human genes.
We can not even manipulate the genes of a potato right. We know next to zero how genes works together.

Again, UK and France already performed successful genetic engineering of little children to cure them of SCID. That is a start. Here is the scientific publication on how they do it.

[soup]

Whoa- I'm not all for that stuff.. please don't say that I am here.

I am interested in the idea of preventing problems that are essentially unstoppable once they come to fruition. A lot of diseases are incurable once they get going, but advances in prevention could stop them. There was a thread on google getting into the anti-aging business that talked about this.

I don't know the details on the genetics of psychopaths or nuture/nature when it comes to that.

I agree- I don't want guys like us to get weeded out. That said, once all of this stuff gets going, I believe that certain personality traits/genes will get removed, regardless of whether or not it is for what we believe is right.

[Nemencine]

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I enjoyed reading this thread very much. However I believe OP is incorrect in most all of his conjectures.

You say repeatedly that you like to base your predictions on COLD HARD facts and scientific truth. I will agree that when dealing with any sort of guesswork there should be primarily empirical data to work off of, but you are relying solely on logistical information to predict the outcome of an inherently irrational set of human behaviors.

Isn't this how human knowledge has progressed since immemorial? We attempt to analyze irrational sets of events with as much empirical data as possible. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Dependent variable and independent variable. I dont see what is wrong with that. This is how the field of sociology, psychology, and even economics, came into being. Besides, i think it will be more productive if manosphere's dystopian predictions are more grounded in facts, historical and scientific.

(sidenote: to the philosophers, no thomas kuhn paradigm shift argument or feyeraband's Against Method here or critique of positivism here. it will derail the thread. Let us keep this thread on point.)

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I noticed you declined to reply to someone because they were making sociological points.

I DID NOT decline to engage all sociological points, only the one specifically related to race. I was very specific.

Samseau was making the point that collectively, only whitemen can create this kind of civilization. How are you going to argue for, or against, that position without endlessly swimming in the seas of conjectures? Tell Samseau that the ancient Greeks would probably had the exact same parochial view with regards to the barbaric Germans? and yet, these uncivilized barbaric germans later went to create incredible breakthroughs. A counter claiming that since the greeks and germans are both white, as such they are same category, is simply a perspective you have living in this day and age.

I dont want to swim endlessly in the sea of conjectures.

Anyways, that is the sociological points i declined to address: that only the whitemen can create this kind of civilization. I submitted the FACTs of asian publications in science and engineering and leave the discussion at that. I like to hew my discussion as closely as possible to verifiable data, when it starts veering off too much into the hypotheticals, i am off. In my view, that is a sound personal policy.

So, again, i did not avoid sociological arguments, ONLY THE ONES DEALING WITH RACE.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I would argue that in predicting which of the emerging technologies become accepted and normal, you must account for human idiosyncrasies, psychology, and sociology.

Of course. I have no objection to this. Just because i dont see a rational, data-driven parameters to have the discussion of "only whitemen can create this civilization". Doesnt mean that i am against factoring in sociological issus into the implementation of scientific breakthroughs.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

You cannot get into predicting which of these technologies will become prevalent without accounting for the filter of human imperfections and abstract variables they must pass through to become accepted by humans.

I agree. Your above point goes to dystopian manosphere's predictions at RVF. Most of which are not even based on easily verifiable facts, unlike my posts which tries to hew to facts as much as possible.

What is the value in generating seemingly rational conjectures about an impending financial collapse and the effects on society, without looking at verifiable, relevant historical parallels? It just makes no sense to me. I prefer to keep my hypothesis as close to facts as i can.

On proofs: the Chinese are already making it have meaningful effects e.g. Yao Ming; and yes, France and UK genetic engineering of children with SCID also have meaningful effects. On top of that, i think is a bit naive to think that the Chinese will perfect genetic engineering and then just sit on it. why would they? They will bloody implement it.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

In other words, simply because you can prove these technologies exist, doesn't mean you can prove they will without a doubt have any meaningful effect on humans as a species, or as we as a civilization.

UK and France successful genetic engineering treatment of children with SCID have meaningful effects. I think it is highly improbable that the chinese who are already working on all sorts of genetic engineering, will not implement it. They are already doing genetic breeding of humans beings, for heaven's sake.

Again to re-iterate: Your point, youngback, goes to dystopian manosphere's predictions at RVF that are not even based on easily verifiable facts; unlike my posts which tries to hew to facts as much as possible.

What is the value in generating seemingly rational conjectures about an impending financial collapse and the effects on society, without looking at verifiable, relevant historical parallels? It just makes no sense to me. I prefer to keep my hypothesis as close to facts as i can.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I appreciate your undying adherence to the factual, but I think you're missing half the picture. You cannot argue that all these advances you present will effect us in the future simply because they exist, or because they're significant. You're missing a host of cultural, financial, and behavioral variables. You could list plenty more unknowns.

I am not disagreeing with this, i am not some Oracle of Delphi claiming the future is etched in stone. My position is simply this: If i am going to make arguments about how the near future will turn out, i will prefer to based my prediction on verifiable facts. That is more rigorous than just generating conjectures left and right. I would rather hew my views as close to facts as possible. That makes obvious sense to me.

And no, i am not missing a whole host of cultural, financial, behavioural variables--. That is part of the reasons why i wrote about the "innovations and the great depression".-- to discuss the financial angles. Again, that is an example of me trying to hew my assessment of events to be as close to verifiable facts as possible. In my view, that is a better way to go about prognosticating about the future than just generating conjectures left and right.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

Another thing I noticed is that you mentioned financial collapse a few times. What bothers me is that you relate the future of our financial stability to past collapses such as the Great Depression. Again, you are not accounting for a wide range of variables. We cannot say for certain any future financial collapse will bear any resemblance whatsoever to the conditions present during the Great Depression.

I am not objecting to this, again, my point is this: what else are you going to based any hypothetical future scenario on? I will prefer to based my hypothesis on the Great Depression, since we can verify the facts. Than to just ignore the Great Depression data and profess how things will turn out, without using any form of historical precedence.

From my experience, this is how research is done: while acknowledging limitations and variables, you try as much as possible to based your hypothesis on verifiable data points. This is how research is done in science, psychology, economics, sociology, etc. What is the value in generating seemingly rational conjectures about financial collapse and the effects on society, without looking at verifiable, relevant historical parallels?

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

To assume innovation will not be stifled during the upcoming collapses only because it wasn't 100 years ago is a shaky platform.

I am not denying the variables and limitations. But if i am going to prognosticate about the future like we all do here at RVF. I will prefer mine to be based on verifiable historical parallels. It is not 100%, but is beats future extrapolation based on absolutely nothing except seemingly rational conjectures. I prefer mine to be grounded.

It makes more sense to say that based on what happened during the Great Depression, that innovation will not be stifled. Than to state the opposite: that in a future financial collapse innovation will be stifled without providing any verifiable historical parallel e.g. "dark ages" examples that people brought up on this thread.

What rigorous economic data points do we have about the "dark ages" comparable to the data points we have about the Great depression? So, how does it make any sense to pick the "dark ages" that is even far more removed from us, over the Great depression that is closer to us in timeline? The farther away in timeline, the less applicable it is to modern times, because the variables increase exponentially. This is why data analysis sometimes employ weighted moving averages. This is research methodology 101.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I have to go to work and I'm on a phone so this will be shorter than id like but I will revisit later.

Something else that kept coming to mind is the nature of the monetary system and how it relates to technology. I'm sure you know this but our governments money is loaned with interest from the federal reserve. Not to get off topic, I believe you cannot separate these predictions of the future of technology without looking at what fuels the tech itself. That being money. as we all know the US has run up an exorbitant tab. Trillions in debt. The accumulation of debt has coincided with our advances in technology. You must have money to pay very smart people to come up with the latest in whatever field it may be. The materials are expensive, the tools are expensive, the research is expensive. Do we just assume the US can saddle itself with infinite debt? Perhaps the private sector could take over. Regardless of who is at the helm of innovation, the problem remains;

This is the reason why i wrote a section about "innovations and the Great Depression". To examine historically the effects of capital and technological innovations. In my view, it is simply not rigorous to based any future projections of how financial collapse will affect innovation without using historical parallels. Hence, i went with the Great Depression.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

the type of technology advances you discuss rely on the idea of endless capital, and endless energy.

No, it does not. A typical National Science Foundation scientific grant is $250,000. That is it. A university research lab in africa can perform genetic engineering research. I am not talking about nuclear physics research here, i am talking about genetic research.

For less than $300,000 i can perform a full scale genetic engineering experiment for you. How much do you think each science professor gets in grant money, to make all these breakthroughs i have been talking about? Ask any RVF member that have had to write proposal for grant money to conduct a full scale science research.

This post did a fairly good breakdown of how much a standard science research lab actually costs.. Initial setup $500,000 to $1,000,000, continuous funding around $300,000. The rest depends on the genius of the reseacher. it is all brain work. It doesnt require endless capital.

Here is a list of 3rd world countries where they are doing genetic research. No, you dont need endless energy or endless capital.

And this is the problem: You are basing your argument on endless energy and endless capital, but you havent provided for me a verifiable data point to support that position. On the other hand, i provided verifiable patents granted data points about the Great Depression to support the fact that financial collapse doesnt mean end of innovation. You see my point? I dont deny the limitations of my position, but i try to keep my hypothesis as close as possible to verifiable historical parallels and scientific facts of todays world.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

Endless energy seems more feasible as time passes, but it is not certain. Endless capital is a serious problem at this point as every dollar in circulation is owed back to the fed with interest.

Again, the genetic engineering research doesnt need endless energy or endless capita. A university laboratory in africa can pull it off. Again, here is a list of 3rd world countries where they are doing genetic research.

A standard genetic lab in a university usually gets $300,00 in grant money from the National Science Foundation, to conduct their ground breaking genetic experiments.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

Not only that but the value of a dollar is decreasing rapidly. Combine those two factors and you see how unlikely it is that these types of fantastical, sci-fi-esque technologies will take a prevalent role in our society anytime soon.

There is nothing sci-fi about it. It is a reality, not fiction. It has already been done. verified. On the issue of prevalence, that has more to do with bioethics laws than anything else. On the issue of execution of the research, like i said, a university research laboratory in africa can pull it off.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

I simply cannot believe the trends you describe will see any extrapolation when I begin to think of all of the obstacles they face in seeing widespread use. From a scientists perspective I can see how convincing OPs post would be. But to say with such certainty that any of these will find a spot in civilization is unfounded and unrealistic.

The future is not written in stone. I am not god who knows the future. However, if we are making prognostication about the future on RVF, I think my position is far more realistic because it is based on verifiable historical parallels and scientific facts; than some dystopian manospheric vision that is all made up from rational sounding conjectures.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

COLD HARD FACTS are not enough for such certain conjecture in the face of the vast complexity of the human meta-mind. You must incorporate other variables.

Again, to re-iterate: if we are making prognostication about the future on RVF, I think my position is far more realistic because it is based on verifiable historical parallels and scientific facts; than some dystopian manospheric vision that is all made up from rational sounding conjectures.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

At this point, the closest I can get to agreeing with you is that yes, perhaps there will be some implementation of these technologies. But if you look at the current political climate, there is deep corruption in the upper levels of the hierarchy and the power they have come to wield is unprecedented.

I dont deny that, that is why i stated clearly and distinctively about the increase social stratification in a genetically engineered society

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

If you think these guys are going to give John and Jane doe the power to level the playing field with super IQ enhancements and gene optimization you are simply unaware of how things work in the real world.

Respectfully, i think i have stated about 5 times already in this thread, in multiple posts, how i expect society to be increasing stratified in a genetically engineered future. I honestly don't know why you are making that point to me as if i didnt mentioned that increase social stratification.

(07-29-2014 11:34 AM)Youngback Wrote:  

Look at tech now. A lot of the crazy advances are seeing military use an experimentation before it's even announced to the public that it exists. Such has been the case with the internet. If anything, I could see the military attempt to use a lot of this stuff for super soldiers and the populace will get dummed down, marketable versions of them.

Count on the elites or military getting a hold of this stuff before counting on anyone using it to better humankind.

I agree with you. Good post, youngback.

regards,

Nemencine

[Samseau]

Nemencine Wrote:

I DID NOT decline to engage all sociological points, only the one specifically related to race. I was very specific.

Samseau was making the point that collectively, only whitemen can create this kind of civilization. How are you going to argue for, or against, that position without endlessly swimming in the seas of conjectures? Tell Samseau that the ancient Greeks would probably had the exact same parochial view with regards to the barbaric Germans? and yet, these uncivilized barbaric germans later went to create incredible breakthroughs. A counter claiming that since the greeks and germans are both white, as such they are same category, is simply a perspective you have living in this day and age.

I dont want to swim endlessly in the sea of conjectures.

Anyways, that is the sociological points i declined to address: that only the whitemen can create this kind of civilization. I submitted the FACTs of asian publications in science and engineering and leave the discussion at that. I like to hew my discussion as closely as possible to verifiable data, when it starts veering off too much into the hypotheticals, i am off. In my view, that is a sound personal policy.

So, again, i did not avoid sociological arguments, ONLY THE ONES DEALING WITH RACE.

Excuse me? You were the one who brought up race in the opening post. I was responding to that. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim you can't talk about sociological matters in regards to race after you were the one who originally brought the topic out for discussion. Right from your post on part 4:

Quote:

This goes to my view on discussion of genetic intelligence in the Manosphere. When germline genetic engineering or some cocktail protein of NR2B from this research is finally approved; this will render IQ boasting mute. Because you can simply manufacture higher IQ out of almost nothing, so those boasting about their IQs, or trying to preserve their race IQ are just wasting their time.

And I objected on the grounds that it is not merely IQ that generates scientific breakthroughs, or even the race of the individual, but the race of the society itself. So far you haven't given any solid objection to that other than, "Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't!"

Which is like saying just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't means it will rise against tomorrow. Very weak.

[Nemencine]

.
Cool.

(07-29-2014 08:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

.....
Excuse me? You were the one who brought up race in the opening post. I was responding to that. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim you can't talk about sociological matters in regards to race after you were the one who originally brought the topic out for discussion. Right from your post on part 4:

Quote:

This goes to my view on discussion of genetic intelligence in the Manosphere. When germline genetic engineering or some cocktail protein of NR2B from this research is finally approved; this will render IQ boasting mute. Because you can simply manufacture higher IQ out of almost nothing, so those boasting about their IQs, or trying to preserve their race IQ are just wasting their time.

And I objected on the grounds that it is not merely IQ that generates scientific breakthroughs, or even the race of the individual, but the race of the society itself. So far you haven't given any solid objection to that other than, "Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't!"

Which is like saying just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't means it will rise against tomorrow. Very weak.

[Sp5]

Globalism will bring a new kind of nexus between culture, commerce and technology. It's not just the technology, it's how and who uses it. Nemencine is right to focus on the likely Chinese use of these new human-enhancing discoveries. The Chinese seem to pick their rulers through a rigorous screening process. These guys seem very smart - the new president Xi Jinping in particular.

I was flipping through channels and caught some shows on CCTV-4 (a Chinese state television channel) with English subtitles.

The first one was a game show with foreign contestants being judged on their Chinese speaking ability. The contestants had to make a sales pitch for a restaurant meal. There were three American contestants, one Australian and one Kazakh. They had what looked like impressive fluency.

The message was not in the show itself, but the effort to win over foreigners and promote Chinese culture and language.

The second show was a comedy/drama about aviation officer cadets in an "experimental" military academy class. The premise of the show was that these non-conformist cadets were recruited and are being evaluated by their superiors and a military psychologist.

The cadets were breaking all kinds of rules, but this was positively evaluated by the superiors if they broke rules in a creative and mission-accomplishing way.

Given that this was state TV and an ordinary TV series, it seem to be some kind of official promotion of a new kind of attitude in China. China is looking long term.

[Feisbook Control]

Nemencine: Do you think they would ever screen out dark triad traits? I suspect that they wouldn't because those traits seem to be fairly prevalent amongst the elite. They might screen them out for everyone else to prevent competition, but not for themselves, surely. Those traits are probably part of how/why they maintain their power.

Increasingly, I think feminism is just a tool and these social justice warriors and other nuisances are useful idiots. If they ever truly threatened the elite, they'd disappear very quickly. Instead, I suspect they're a disruptive tool used by the elite to break competition. I think the elite are trying to reintroduce some kind of feudalism (which I am not even sure if I am opposed to these days).

At least in the Anglosphere, the self-sufficient man, as exemplified by the land owning, entrepreneurial and industrious middle class male, was always the one who held the elite's feet to the fire. The history of Anglo-American politics is a devolution of power from king to baron to gentry to commoner to woman to different ethnicity (the last two switching in different circumstances). It actually goes deeper than that as it's a much older struggle between the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) proto-democracic and the Romance (French/Latin) aristocratic traditions.

Regardless, breaking the middle class male -- and by extension, his traditions and institutions, including the family -- sets up the perfect end game. I believe now that feminists are unwitting pawns in that. However, what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. The elite might let feminists run amok in certain places, but they won't give them carte blanche, especially not when it comes to the possibility of fucking up the elite's own dynasties. If push came to shove, the elite would just have certain "free scientific zones" and access to them (whether by citizenship or other means) that others wouldn't. America on the whole might go batshit crazy, but not the elite enclaves.

[bacan]

(07-27-2014 04:49 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

I've been thinking for a while that someone could write a novel along the lines of "The Handmaid's Tale", only in a future where the matriarchy has won.

Just bumping this thread because I just found out about this book for the first time.

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/13909423...maids-tale

Book Summary

A chilling look at the near future presents the story of Offred, a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, once the United States, an oppressive world where women are no longer allowed to read and are valued only as long as they are viable for reproduction.