Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

barn

Ai mimicking your voice INDISTINGUISHABLY

Recommended Posts

Quote

Sorry, can't really 'get' why you would be asking that. Care to elaborate?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. This was the first case of an AI calling a restaurant afaik. The operator on the restaurant's side wasn't aware that he didn't speak to an AI because this was the first instance so he had to assume that it was a person. I think it's a nice gimmick for google to show, while they work at more important issues related with AI. The main problem is not creating an expert system, it is developing a framework in which it can operate. Once that is establish, it can replace humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ofd said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. This was the first case of an AI calling a restaurant afaik. The operator on the restaurant's side wasn't aware that he didn't speak to an AI because this was the first instance so he had to assume that it was a person. I think it's a nice gimmick for google to show, while they work at more important issues related with AI. The main problem is not creating an expert system, it is developing a framework in which it can operate. Once that is establish, it can replace humans.

It's pretty funny how today, seemingly all I do is thank people for providing great insights into their thinking... Thank you for yours!

What do you think about this argument?

I wrote earlier in one of the posts:

"The problem I was trying to raise awareness of is, when you are on the receiving end, but you can't tell... if you can't tell, you can't influence it. (as in: nobody tries to step over a puddle they haven't thought to look for/looked and the illusion tricked them)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome :)

You are right, most people aren't aware of the changes that will come in the next few decades. Previously, when there was a technological change that disrupted industries, people could find jobs in new industries. When the car became more popular, workers found employment in car factories and so on.
With expert systems or AIs it will be different because happens at all sections for people who have a similar profile. The measurement today is the time it takes to take a decision. Today, the metric is 2 seconds. If it takes you 2 seconds to make a decision, your job can be automated, given there is a framework. Over time that time will increase and more and more complex systems will be rolled out. Which in turn means, that all of a sudden people with a median IQ of 100 will have a hard time finding a job. The more that progresses, the higher the IQ percentile that will be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofd said:

You are welcome :)

You are right, most people aren't aware of the changes that will come in the next few decades. Previously, when there was a technological change that disrupted industries, people could find jobs in new industries. When the car became more popular, workers found employment in car factories and so on.
With expert systems or AIs it will be different because happens at all sections for people who have a similar profile. The measurement today is the time it takes to take a decision. Today, the metric is 2 seconds. If it takes you 2 seconds to make a decision, your job can be automated, given there is a framework. Over time that time will increase and more and more complex systems will be rolled out. Which in turn means, that all of a sudden people with a median IQ of 100 will have a hard time finding a job. The more that progresses, the higher the IQ percentile that will be affected.

1. Is it morally good or bad that people are not needed for specific businesses? If I run a grocery store and one day technology has changed such as it is in my best interest to use automated cashiers and stocking robots and drone delivery service, is it morally wrong for me to do so?

2. On the flip side, is it morally wrong to invent a robot or other automation technology when there is a demand for it? If so, then essentially all inventions would be immoral to invent because they decrease total labor needs for the same total output.

3. Do people have a right to be provided a job?

I think whether low IQ people are able to find the next thing or not is irrelevant. It is not a moral issue. It is not even my business to worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is it morally good or bad that people are not needed for specific businesses?

That depends on which ethical school of thought you adher to.
 

Quote

If I run a grocery store and one day technology has changed such as it is in my best interest to use automated cashiers and stocking robots and drone delivery service, is it morally wrong for me to do so? 

It's not a moral question. As long as you don't hurt anybody or defraud people it's a neutral action. However, neutral actions can have negative outcomes.
 

Quote

If so, then essentially all inventions would be immoral to invent because they decrease total labor needs for the same total output. 

That doesn't follow. Automation decreases the marginal cost of production. You can employ the same number of people and produce more goods at a lower price.
 

Quote

On the flip side, is it morally wrong to invent a robot or other automation technology when there is a demand for it?

Neither the demand nor implementation of automation are moral questions. They follow the inherent logic of an established free market.
 

Quote

Do people have a right to be provided a job? 

No. If at all, people have the reasonable expectation that their government create a framework which allows them to find jobs.
 

Quote

I think whether low IQ people are able to find the next thing or not is irrelevant. It is not a moral issue. It is not even my business to worry about it. 

It will be once those people start getting unruly, having no jobs and what not. Just in case you didn't notice, there are a lot more dumb than smart people. Furthermore, they have less inhibitions to use violence to get what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ofd said:

You are welcome :)

You are right, most people aren't aware of the changes that will come in the next few decades. Previously, when there was a technological change that disrupted industries, people could find jobs in new industries. When the car became more popular, workers found employment in car factories and so on.
With expert systems or AIs it will be different because happens at all sections for people who have a similar profile. The measurement today is the time it takes to take a decision. Today, the metric is 2 seconds. If it takes you 2 seconds to make a decision, your job can be automated, given there is a framework. Over time that time will increase and more and more complex systems will be rolled out. Which in turn means, that all of a sudden people with a median IQ of 100 will have a hard time finding a job. The more that progresses, the higher the IQ percentile that will be affected.

If the coming changes raised the bar for many professions (which I think would be a net benefit for society, if... subsidising didn't implode alongside) that'll mean (looking at what has been the nature of governments) more gov. programs will be created to sustain the vegetative state of an even larger slice of the population, justifying the need for an even greater dependence on government. Supplemented with the watchful eye of B(S)IG brother, who just boasted how easy it is to dupe people. People can't defend themselves against unseen dangers, control/coercion is set to increase.

However, (also responding to your certain jobs disappeared entirely part, more as advancements appear...) if a greater freemarket was allowed with more transparency and no 'rigging the game', we could actually start giving the right incentives to the 'able' segment of the population to 'heal' the current imbalance over the long run. Those who'd loose their jobs would certainly have to struggle to adapt. The first couple generations would definitely be 'shocked' but then as prevention and critical thinking got more prominent (nature doesn't have safe rooms), we'd see a much more aware attitude towards realistic goals and development of transferable skillsets.

i.e. - more tradesmen/women, higher appreciation amongst the less gifted for the opportunity to work the less pleasant, increase in the confidence amongst the more intelligent to have more children, more & specific guidance for preventative measures, better insurance policies, finding new types of jobs or just shifting as the market required...

That's why I think, this product in the current zeitgeist is not going to become the tool for more and real, economic feedback but a huge influence and 'bartering chip' in the hands of the people who are already trying to control what can be said, who can do business and where with conditions ONLY that won't make the competition any fairer. In this current situation, I think we are playing with fire when considering AI. I would like to see freedom of speech upheld first, realism about topics that the very same company is actively working on (at best) repressing.

If you read it all, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ofd said:

It will be once those people start getting unruly, having no jobs and what not. Just in case you didn't notice, there are a lot more dumb than smart people. Furthermore, they have less inhibitions to use violence to get what they want. 

 

So the argument is to hold back human kind just because human kind is being held back by lower IQ individuals? You do realize it's not going to take much to justify eugenics before too long, and despite all that can and most likely would go wrong with it, it'd fly much faster than "we need to stop getting better."

 

It seems logical to me that a bigger argument would be that we're better off finding ways to help the low IQ people compensate, assuming that their IQ will not change. There have been huge efforts in programming, believe it or not, to accomplish this, for example, which is why we see the market flooded with cheap unity, game-maker, rpgmaker, etc games with paywalls where people will sit and watch ads or pay micro-transactions just to skip a countdown timer. Sure, the goods aren't great, still see some degree of adaptation for the inclusion of low IQ developers, assuming that the future of developers is going to be huge amounts of low IQ people. Sure enough, this kind of AI technology actually aims to do that. "Usability" things have always been centered around "how can we make this easier for the idiots." What bothers me is when things go from "how do we make this easier?" to "How do we protect the user from themselves?" However, that's a whole other topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, barn said:

If the coming changes raised the bar for many professions (which I think would be a net benefit for society, if... subsidising didn't implode alongside) that'll mean (looking at what has been the nature of governments) more gov. programs will be created to sustain the vegetative state of an even larger slice of the population, justifying the need for an even greater dependence on government. Supplemented with the watchful eye of B(S)IG brother, who just boasted how easy it is to dupe people. People can't defend themselves against unseen dangers, control/coercion is set to increase.

However, (also responding to your certain jobs disappeared entirely part, more as advancements appear...) if a greater freemarket was allowed with more transparency and no 'rigging the game', we could actually start giving the right incentives to the 'able' segment of the population to 'heal' the current imbalance over the long run. Those who'd loose their jobs would certainly have to struggle to adapt. The first couple generations would definitely be 'shocked' but then as prevention and critical thinking got more prominent (nature doesn't have safe rooms), we'd see a much more aware attitude towards realistic goals and development of transferable skillsets.

i.e. - more tradesmen/women, higher appreciation amongst the less gifted for the opportunity to work the less pleasant, increase in the confidence amongst the more intelligent to have more children, more & specific guidance for preventative measures, better insurance policies, finding new types of jobs or just shifting as the market required...

That's why I think, this product in the current zeitgeist is not going to become the tool for more and real, economic feedback but a huge influence and 'bartering chip' in the hands of the people who are already trying to control what can be said, who can do business and where with conditions ONLY that won't make the competition any fairer. In this current situation, I think we are playing with fire when considering AI. I would like to see freedom of speech upheld first, realism about topics that the very same company is actively working on (at best) repressing.

If you read it all, thanks.

Part of the problem is that big brother is big brother. If we did a good enough job showing people how big brother intentionally tries to dupe us, and not for our benefit, perhaps the people would stop seeing big brother as a benevolent brother, but a manipulative family member who's only worried about his own gains.

This may not seem related, but it offers a great analogy. My mother had to be adopted, because the situation with her biological mother was, well, bad. Now, the adoptive parents also had biological children. Obviously, they prioritize their biological children, since that's how we work, right or wrong. As a result, and due to my mother's agreeableness and work ethic, she made a pretty good stay at home child who was never meant to leave home, really. Your old Cinderella story. My dear father, got with my mother, and the family allowed this, but when it came time that it appeared they would to be wed, the family didn't like, as my father put it a few hours ago, "their dishwashing machine" to "be stolen." It took me a minute to realize why my father "stole the dishwasher," when i realized he was obviously referring to my mother. My father was trying to get hired at the local steel mill, and he did so, but he was forced to work under her step brother, which was to be his brother in law (or already was, as i'm not sure of the chronology, here). But, as usual, my father had to work extra hard to prove to my mother, that he wasn't the worthless person her family, her big brother, made my father out to be, and he had to do so while constantly worrying about her step-brother ultimately trying to get him fired.

The relevance? We who know better, represent my father in this situation. The common people are my mother, who out of familiar trust and indoctrination, irrationally believe that the government is looking out for our best interests. Of course, my step-uncle would then most likely convince himself that he was looking out for what was in her best interest, not his biological parents (he was getting married and moving out himself, too, so it wasn't entirely selfish), so he naturally believed, also, what he said of my father, just as the government believes, honestly, that they are actually looking out for our best interest while instead looking out for their own (this is why their lies are so convincing). It is our job to show that the government is lying to itself, it is incompetent, and is not looking out for their best interests. Like with my father, the chips are stacked against us, and we need to show, and this must be "with love," that we're right, even though the government has power over us as well and is trying to say that we're the ones who are crooks looking out for our own interests (that we're the crony capitalists). All we really have is the truth, so the only way we can really win, is by taking the one and only thing we have, and apply it as much as possible. We must show the people we care about humanity over our own personal interests, we must show them the government lies, we must show them the truth at all times if we want to convince them.

And the other sick truth is, we sometimes also need to know when to let go, and accept that some people either cannot be convinced, or that we are just fighting a loosing battle way, way too hard. And, like i said, all we have is the truth, so, this is why it looks like we're loosing so badly. We might actually be loosing. We really do need to figure out what the truth is so we can use it against the government more effectively. Use the truth against them, to the point that both the sheep and big brother both see, as plain as the time of day, that big brother lies for his own interest, even if he believes he's doing the right thing.

This tech is only one of many, many battle grounds and an avenue for lies. The government might use it, they might not. Other than that, we're chasing butterflies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So the argument is to hold back human kind just because human kind is being held back by lower IQ individuals? You do realize it's not going to take much to justify eugenics before too long, and despite all that can and most likely would go wrong with it, it'd fly much faster than "we need to stop getting better." 

You can't stop market forces that are inherent to the market's logic. If some Northern countries decided to ban the use of expert systems on the workforce, other countries would happily adopt them and gain an advantage. The West has been practicing eugenics for the last centuries until recently by prohibiting cousin marriage and arranging marriages based on beneficial traits. The idea of a romantic marriage for middle and upper class strata of the society dates back to the mid 19th century. Before, people were chosen on rational grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Part of the problem is that big brother is big brother. If we did a good enough job showing people how big brother intentionally tries to dupe us, and not for our benefit, perhaps the people would stop seeing big brother as a benevolent brother, but a manipulative family member who's only worried about his own gains. 

I think an apt symbolical confirmation could be the cheers heard throughout the demonstration/presentation (it really freaks me out) and lack of 'flying rotten vegetables', I'd much rather have seen the person on the stage trying to duck constantly, amping the speakers to full struggling to out-shout the boo-ing audience... It's not reality. For now, at least.

But yeah, why would a 'paid' crowd do such a thing? (to ask that, perhaps it's to answer it)

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

This may not seem related, but it offers a great analogy. My mother had to be adopted, because the situation with her biological mother was, well, bad. Now, the adoptive parents also had biological children. Obviously, they prioritize their biological children, since that's how we work, right or wrong. As a result, and due to my mother's agreeableness and work ethic, she made a pretty good stay at home child who was never meant to leave home, really. Your old Cinderella story. My dear father, got with my mother, and the family allowed this, but when it came time that it appeared they would to be wed, the family didn't like, as my father put it a few hours ago, "their dishwashing machine" to "be stolen." It took me a minute to realize why my father "stole the dishwasher," when i realized he was obviously referring to my mother. My father was trying to get hired at the local steel mill, and he did so, but he was forced to work under her step brother, which was to be his brother in law (or already was, as i'm not sure of the chronology, here). But, as usual, my father had to work extra hard to prove to my mother, that he wasn't the worthless person her family, her big brother, made my father out to be, and he had to do so while constantly worrying about her step-brother ultimately trying to get him fired. 

I'm sorry.

That's, I'd imagine would have to be a great challenge for anyone to have when trying to start a normal life, just after having had a 'serious accident'.

Maybe it's just me and I hope you see how my intentions are of constructivity... I've noticed, there's an awful lot of 'made to'-, 'had to'-, 'due to'-, 'to be__'-s which is why I'm wondering:

Do you think it was a more accurate way to describe the events using descriptions for conscious choices people in your account did/didn't make?

I'm basing my question on: Those who take full agency for their own decisions, will and are ABLE TO ascribe responsibility for others under the same principle (seeking of/truth is normalised), narratives for 'those reasons' become more accurate. Follow-up actions tell a more detailed account of the characters involved.

Also, as an IMPORTANT caveat: I'm fully conscious of the limitations where coercion or threat is present, shrinking the pool of choices, making certain ones less appealing or even dangerous. Even so, wouldn't you agree that it was better to NOT use passive descriptors, simply for, they contain insufficient amount of information?

Maybe it's to much to apply here, I just thought it could be a helpful observation.

6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

And the other sick truth is, we sometimes also need to know when to let go, and accept that some people either cannot be convinced, or that we are just fighting a loosing battle way, way too hard.

This is masterfully depicted by Stefan Molyneux's 'Simon the boxer' example in his books, perhaps in OT (On Truth) the best. (For me, it brought about a deeper understanding of an insane cycle, a trap designed to rot people's soul, inflict more pain 'photocopier style' and taught me how to spot 'it' more often than not. It's also empirically tested&confirmed, that's why I'm bringing it up.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't stop market forces that are inherent to the market's logic. If some Northern countries decided to ban the use of expert systems on the workforce, other countries would happily adopt them and gain an advantage. The West has been practicing eugenics for the last centuries until recently by prohibiting cousin marriage and arranging marriages based on beneficial traits. The idea of a romantic marriage for middle and upper class strata of the society dates back to the mid 19th century. Before, people were chosen on rational grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ofd said:

You can't stop market forces that are inherent to the market's logic.

In an ideal world, I couldn't agree with you more.

The reason why I wish that was true is because (I. ) technological advances come out from disproportionately small areas of the world, perhaps even an amalgamation of a several things. While (II. ) a generally present factor with varying intensity is the presence of over regulation and coercion, otherwise called government interference.

5 hours ago, ofd said:

Before, people were chosen on rational grounds. 

Ok, this is perhaps just nitpicking... Feel free to ignore.

Did you mean 'rational' as 'economic', 'fear of social austerity'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

(I. ) technological advances come out from disproportionately small areas of the world, perhaps even an amalgamation of a several things.

This is true. But you have competition among companies, which also drives innovation. Once Toyota started their lean production mode (a comparatively minor technological advancement) it was at first ignored but then after some time copied all over the world. If you have competition and a minor advancement can help you decrease the marginal costs by a bit, that advancement will be implemented sooner or later.

 

Quote

While (II. ) a generally present factor with varying intensity is the presence of over regulation and coercion, otherwise called government interference. 

This is very true, but it's hard to quantify. Since the end of the cold war, you have seen a trend towards less interference, even the Nordic countries have begun to become a bit less restrictive, compared to the past 70 years.
 

Quote

Did you mean 'rational' as 'economic', 'fear of social austerity'? 

That's a good question, usually the both were connected. Keeping the family's fortunes together by marrying a partner from a good family was more important than good looks.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ofd said:

You can't stop market forces that are inherent to the market's logic. If some Northern countries decided to ban the use of expert systems on the workforce, other countries would happily adopt them and gain an advantage. The West has been practicing eugenics for the last centuries until recently by prohibiting cousin marriage and arranging marriages based on beneficial traits. The idea of a romantic marriage for middle and upper class strata of the society dates back to the mid 19th century. Before, people were chosen on rational grounds.

Wouldn't that be dysgenics? But, anyway, i was implying a more direct control.

10 hours ago, barn said:

I'm sorry.

That's, I'd imagine would have to be a great challenge for anyone to have when trying to start a normal life, just after having had a 'serious accident'.

Maybe it's just me and I hope you see how my intentions are of constructivity... I've noticed, there's an awful lot of 'made to'-, 'had to'-, 'due to'-, 'to be__'-s which is why I'm wondering:

Do you think it was a more accurate way to describe the events using descriptions for conscious choices people in your account did/didn't make?

I'm basing my question on: Those who take full agency for their own decisions, will and are ABLE TO ascribe responsibility for others under the same principle (seeking of/truth is normalised), narratives for 'those reasons' become more accurate. Follow-up actions tell a more detailed account of the characters involved.

Also, as an IMPORTANT caveat: I'm fully conscious of the limitations where coercion or threat is present, shrinking the pool of choices, making certain ones less appealing or even dangerous. Even so, wouldn't you agree that it was better to NOT use passive descriptors, simply for, they contain insufficient amount of information?

Maybe it's to much to apply here, I just thought it could be a helpful observation.

While i believe in agency and free will, I also have a history of being able to predict human behaviors (more accurately than a weather forecast, i hate to say). While, sure, this could've turned out differently at every one of those causality statements, they didn't. Maybe it was just my state of mind and/or mood at the time of writing: I had just gotten home from being choked and put into arm-bars alot (for demonstration purposes). After seeing your reply, i knwo that i would've written it differently, but i'm not really sure what would have me writing it differently: your reply or some other change. To be fair, though, the causality is a bit important to understand in regards to how i use the analogy, since the purpose of the post was to get a point across, not to tell my family history.

11 hours ago, barn said:

This is masterfully depicted by Stefan Molyneux's 'Simon the boxer' example in his books, perhaps in OT (On Truth) the best. (For me, it brought about a deeper understanding of an insane cycle, a trap designed to rot people's soul, inflict more pain 'photocopier style' and taught me how to spot 'it' more often than not. It's also empirically tested&confirmed, that's why I'm bringing it up.)

Where might i get a copy? Things tend to move around and disappear around Stefan.

14 minutes ago, ofd said:

This is very true, but it's hard to quantify. Since the end of the cold war, you have seen a trend towards less interference, even the Nordic countries have begun to become a bit less restrictive, compared to the past 70 years.

Depends where you're looking. There's constant cries in the US for regulation of X, Y, and Z.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ofd said:

you have competition among companies, which also drives innovation. Once Toyota started their lean production mode (a comparatively minor technological advancement) it was at first ignored but then after some time copied all over the world. If you have competition and a minor advancement can help you decrease the marginal costs by a bit, that advancement will be implemented sooner or later.

Oh, yes... TPS or 'right now, only what we need'. Very lean and efficient.

Apropos...

You might find fascinating, how Elon Musk takes a fundamentalist (like in physics) approach to figuring out how a factory's useful floorspace better utilised might actually net multiple dozen degrees of increase in productivity. As in: How the volume, mass of things producing compares to the total available volume. (He's not the first one, but apparently he's crazy enough to actually stumble through the 'birth process', being physically present a lot!!!)

I don't remember where have I heard him elaborate on this, sorry. There's a small probability it'll come to me... maybe in an interview from inside one of the factories? Sorry.

a personal note: he's too crazy&/unstable + a terrible father (most likely) to make me see his philosophy worth examining on but a few limited areas... It happens with inventors/technologists to me(I could be wrong). But this bit, even I'm certain he's right.

Always keeping the best bits for Last... Just kidding.

When you said: "after some time copied all over the world." I wondered if it was preferable with the addition of 'when the state finally allowed it.'

as in: GPS, certain surgery procedures, the internet?

As of (you wrote): "Since the end of the cold war, you have seen a trend towards less interference, even the Nordic countries have begun to become a bit less restrictive, compared to the past 70 years."

Well, that's a reeeally broad statement, not saying it to invalidate it but maybe we are just looking at different things through different glasses.

What I see is government power 'going stealth mode' every single day, attaching its tentacles to the young much more and positioning itself (as it has always argued) the only real Shepherd of the people who would be otherwise lost and die starving. Just look at the example of student loans, a fine synonym of 'asymptote' (learnt it the other day), money borrowed which you can never pay back, nor default. A large money battery for the state. Or, take when 'higher education is for free' in Nordic countries... it's not. Everything has a price. If it doesn't, you are literally the product. (Fecebuk, Screwgle, Twatter...)

For more freedom and less interference, we'd have to see... Those now in powerful positions, running pyramid-schemes, take a u-turn and give up treating people as chess pieces after having done so for many, many decades. I'm not saying it's impossible, I only say that it's very unlikely.

As in: What's in it for the 'elite' now in power, to throw away their 'toys', to 'reform'? What would it take for a 'scammer' to get an honest job after a lifetime of lies and cheating? Is that a rational position to pursue or there are better ways to get to the same destination?

I can't give you an example where there was a precedent for anything similar. Please do, if you can.
 

I'm starting to feel pessimistic and when I do it's usually because of someone highly charged with optimism. Are you an optimistic person? Is this just a fluke of mine do you think?

Edited by barn
Xtnd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't remember where have I heard him elaborate on this, sorry. There's a small probability it'll come to me... maybe in an interview from inside one of the factories? Sorry. 

I would love to hear more about that. If you could find it, it would be most appreciated.
 

Quote

I'm starting to feel pessimistic and when I do it's usually because of someone highly charged with optimism. Are you an optimistic person? Is this a fluke of mine do you think? 

I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. On one side, you can see a golden future, where hereditary diseases are wiped out, cancer is no more because of Crispr. A time where we can understand how to treat psychological traumata effectively and where there is much less suffering. It might as well go to the other direction where progress is stifled and we are under the thumb of some leftist ideology. I am more optimistic, because generation Z is already black- and redpilled more so than we were. There is a reason the mainstream is so afraid of the Intellectual Dark Web since they see that those ideas are getting more and more appeal. It's in the nature of kids to revolt against their parents (or so they say) and the revolt is for once on the side of reason with Peterson leading the charge telling his students how to fix their lifes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofd said:

I would love to hear more about that. If you could find it, it would be most appreciated.

Sorry. Don't hold your breath. (I'll have another go at it later)

1 hour ago, ofd said:

Crispr

I almost created a thread on it, hahaha.

(crispr-cas9)

Especially had it in mind for a 'backdoor', a 'morality hack/circumventing' to a feasible & partial application, without going against the Gods (for other's sake).

1 hour ago, ofd said:

 and

About my probable fluke... I think you gave me ample to answer it. Thank you. Enjoyed reading.

Edited by barn
+ reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofd said:

I would love to hear more about that. If you could find it, it would be most appreciated.
 

Consider yourself lucky...

1. In his own words (from 9:20 / 15:00) :

2. A neat, short video adding & summarising :

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.