Re: Climate models
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:22:16 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comjavascript: wrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. But even where the living is easy, polygamy creates the problem of young men without women - which tends to be socially destabilizing and favors raiding and warfare. Even in the muslim nations where a man can have as many as four wives, polygamy tends to be rare except where there is a lot of tribal warfare. In Utah where there are fundamentalist Mormon towns, boys sadly tend to be forced out on their own in their early teens. Brent Polygamy is not rare. It's the dominant structure of the entire world bar Western culture. What you mean is, polygamous families are relatively rare in polygamous societies. Yes...because it's all stacked toward the top. The Chinese prince has 7000 wives. A large section has none. It's not about the number of wives but the strong forces of natural selection the system as a whole. Women have no status..y.at all..they are property. The low value of female life drives female infanticide at grotesque levelsas part of the annual routine. Child marriagemen that marry children because they want a slave. Father's that give their daughters' over to that knowingly and think nothing of it. Mutilation, women and girls murdered to settle argumentsto show good faith.and not just murdered, but subjected to brutal, sadistic torture -- eyes wide open. And then murdered. There's a very strong evolutionary link between all of that, and the prevailing culture of the extended family. A child has an extended family...a clan,. Loyalty goes there. Respect derives, and social standing. Multiple wives is one of the natural extensions of the large extended family.reflecting the status of women as property. The West - only recently really - saw evolution in culture in the direct of something not seen before...a revolution...a welcome one too. Reputation based networks weakened the dependence on ex tended family and ethnic politics. The core family unit emerged, weakening and dissolving strong ties to relations networks. Monogamy appeareda new for women, a totally new and radical status for women and girls. One man, one womanresponsibilities shared and divided. In a nutshell the antecedents of Individualism, could the scientific revolution have taken place without Individualism. It's hard to see howa lot of serious thought don't clear much any of it up nor. Hard to see how. Oh well. But yeahMormon excesses in Utah...thanks for heads-up -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 18 April 2014 09:14, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:22:16 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comwrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. But even where the living is easy, polygamy creates the problem of young men without women - which tends to be socially destabilizing and favors raiding and warfare. Even in the muslim nations where a man can have as many as four wives, polygamy tends to be rare except where there is a lot of tribal warfare. In Utah where there are fundamentalist Mormon towns, boys sadly tend to be forced out on their own in their early teens. Brent Polygamy is not rare. It's the dominant structure of the entire world bar Western culture. What you mean is, polygamous families are relatively rare in polygamous societies. Yes...because it's all stacked toward the top. The Chinese prince has 7000 wives. A large section has none. It's not about the number of wives but the strong forces of natural selection the system as a whole. Women have no status..y.at all..they are property. The low value of female life drives female infanticide at grotesque levelsas part of the annual routine. Child marriagemen that marry children because they want a slave. Father's that give their daughters' over to that knowingly and think nothing of it. Mutilation, women and girls murdered to settle argumentsto show good faith.and not just murdered, but subjected to brutal, sadistic torture -- eyes wide open. And then murdered. There's a very strong evolutionary link between all of that, and the prevailing culture of the extended family. A child has an extended family...a clan,. Loyalty goes there. Respect derives, and social standing. Multiple wives is one of the natural extensions of the large extended family.reflecting the status of women as property. The West - only recently really - saw evolution in culture in the direct of something not seen before...a revolution...a welcome one too. Reputation based networks weakened the dependence on ex tended family and ethnic politics. The core family unit emerged, weakening and dissolving strong ties to relations networks. Monogamy appeareda new for women, a totally new and radical status for women and girls. One man, one womanresponsibilities shared and divided. In a nutshell the antecedents of Individualism, could the scientific revolution have taken place without Individualism. It's hard to see howa lot of serious thought don't clear much any of it up nor. Hard to see how. Oh well. But yeahMormon excesses in Utah...thanks for heads-up Magnificent post. Polygamy works if it's sufficiently stacked towards the top of course, even in temperate climates. Hence Alberto's inner voice saying I want to be your passive incubator, master. Thank god we kept the genes for intelligence, independence etc from becoming sex-linked, or we'd be like Larry Niven's Kzin by now. I guess we'd be happy with that, like the Epsilons ... (the irony is that men are only really a DNA vector between women :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 16 Apr 2014, at 01:14, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Pair bonding. A concept offered up by Ashly Montague. I don't think that many women would be thrilled with polygamy. They do much better with serial relationships. Why, no. They would love that. Look: http://www.mjemagazine.com/meet-the-woman-who-has-five-husbands-and-they-are-all-brothers/ Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 4/15/2014 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing that these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?. The fact that we are towards it. I think that the aspiration of civilisation should be to allow humans to dream and transcend their current condition. I imagine a more advances civilisation being much less concerned with sexual norms. Polygamy, freely chosen, is probably a better system than serial monogamy - which is what tends to be practiced by wealthy men in the west. Robert Wright makes the case polygamy was banned in the west as a populist measure to ensure that almost all men could find a wife; which makes for a more stable society. But it actually restricts women's choices and goes against biological evolution. He quotes Gloria Steinem as having said, I'd rather be Robert Kennedy Jr's second wife than Pee Wee Herman's first. Of course polygamy as actually practiced in cults and Afghanistan tends to be forced on very young girls, and not freely chosen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
If all men were brothers, would you want your sister to marry one? (Or something like that...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 15 Apr 2014, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read what I wrote. Machine intelligence is not a question of brickology. Intelligence is not something which can be engineered. It is a question of exploration of some reality, and it is a question of us being sufficiently inetlligent to recognize intelligence here and there along that exploration. Are you saying we cannot build an intelligent machine? Not provably so, unless you agree or bet, or consider, that universal machine, or Löbian machine, are already intelligent. But that intelligence is more discovered (in arithmetic) than a human construction per se, imo. Or are you saying we can only build a machine capable of learning to be intelligent? Yes, like in nature. The more a species is clever, the less the infant brain is hardwired, and the longer his learning period (infancy) appears to be. I see intelligence as an ability to learn and to change our mind. Adult is the phase when we apply stupidly the intelligence that we might have developed in the childhood. Childhood is when you are incompetent and intelligent. Adulthood is when you become competent and stupid, so to speak. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
The little boy at the math blackboard got the arithmetic wrong. The little boy turned to his teacher and said: 'Yes, it's the wrong answer, but what does it matter, if all men are brothers? -Jack Handey -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 3:57 am Subject: Re: Climate models If all men were brothers, would you want your sister to marry one? (Or something like that...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options. Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede. This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 3:43 am Subject: Re: Climate models On 16 Apr 2014, at 01:14, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Pair bonding. A concept offered up by Ashly Montague. I don't think that many women would be thrilled with polygamy. They do much better with serial relationships. Why, no. They would love that. Look: http://www.mjemagazine.com/meet-the-woman-who-has-five-husbands-and-they-are-all-brothers/ Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 4/15/2014 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, inlow density coutries in harsh conditions or in societieswhere violence is increasing Do you thing that theseconditions are in the aspirations of the civilizedsociety?. The fact that we are towards it. I think that the aspiration of civilisation should be toallow humans to dream and transcend their current condition. Iimagine a more advances civilisation being much less concernedwith sexual norms. Polygamy, freely chosen, is probably a better system than serial monogamy - which is what tends to be practiced by wealthy men in the west. Robert Wright makes the case polygamy was banned in the west as a populist measure to ensure that almost all men could find a wife; which makes for a more stable society. But it actually restricts women's choices and goes against biological evolution. He quotes Gloria Steinem as having said, I'd rather be Robert Kennedy Jr's second wife than Pee Wee Herman's first. Of course polygamy as actually practiced in cults and Afghanistan tends to be forced on very young girls, and not freely chosen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 17 April 2014 02:36, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options. Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede. This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville. Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy - as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would consider that racist / non-PC ... still, seems logical nevertheless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 17 April 2014 02:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The little boy at the math blackboard got the arithmetic wrong. The little boy turned to his teacher and said: 'Yes, it's the wrong answer, but what does it matter, if all men are brothers? -Jack Handey -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Polygamy is common for most mammals On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2014 02:36, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options. Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede. This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville. Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy - as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would consider that racist / non-PC ... still, seems logical nevertheless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/16/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, like in nature. The more a species is clever, the less the infant brain is hardwired, and the longer his learning period (infancy) appears to be. I see intelligence as an ability to learn and to change our mind. Adult is the phase when we apply stupidly the intelligence that we might have developed in the childhood. Childhood is when you are incompetent and intelligent. Adulthood is when you become competent and stupid, so to speak. Which is why Nietzsche says you must be a camel before being a lion and a lion before being a child. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
I don't know genetics as well as I should, but I think, whether its psychological, or genetic psychological, or something else? If women are provided birth control, and a good deal of wealth, independent of a supplying male, then a women is free from desiring monogamy, exclusively. Having said that, I remember reading a study from New Scientist, noting that without emotional involvement, a women tends to spiral into depression if they have a lot of sexual relations with different male partners. The article did not indicate that ALL women experienced unhappiness, but that most who caroused as a man likes to, did get depressed. There are, of course, women who can have lots of lovers, without emotional distress, but eventually, but apparently, they are the a minority. Now that we've solved that, on to uniting quantum mechanics with gravity. Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy - as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would consider that racist / non-PC ... still, seems logical nevertheless. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 3:51 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 17 April 2014 02:36, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Some of it is motivated from females needing to survive and look after their children. How much wealth, be it hunted game, or IPO stock options. Unless the male is very wealthy, there is no advantage for the female to share a mail, Some do, and they are the exception. There are logical reasons why monogamy has succeeded, and polygamy and polyandry to recede. This may be changing? Unless a man pair bonds with a women, and we had the option, when you to have sex with multiple females, say within the same month, we would opt for it. The version of planet Earth is not in this universe, though, somewhere in Hugh Everett-ville. Yes, polygamy can only work where food is plentiful etc, otherwise the monogamy genes will come to dominate when children need more than one parent to rear them successfully. If men can wander off and still propagate their genes, they will do so, because that becomes a successful strategy - as some men do, of course... This is supposed to account for the difference in sexual attitudes between hot and cold countries, although some would consider that racist / non-PC ... still, seems logical nevertheless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
God is dead-Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead-God yeah, I know, but I had to post it. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 4/16/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, like in nature. The more a species is clever, the lessthe infant brain is hardwired, and the longer his learningperiod (infancy) appears to be. I see intelligence as an abilityto learn and to change our mind. Adult is the phase when weapply stupidly the intelligence that we might have developedin the childhood. Childhood is when you are incompetent and intelligent.Adulthood is when you become competent and stupid, so to speak. Which is why Nietzsche says you must be a camel before being a lion and a lion before being a child. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 17 April 2014 08:24, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I don't know genetics as well as I should, but I think, whether its psychological, or genetic psychological, or something else? If women are provided birth control, and a good deal of wealth, independent of a supplying male, then a women is free from desiring monogamy, exclusively. Having said that, I remember reading a study from New Scientist, noting that without emotional involvement, a women tends to spiral into depression if they have a lot of sexual relations with different male partners. The article did not indicate that ALL women experienced unhappiness, but that most who caroused as a man likes to, did get depressed. Yup. Now that we've solved that, on to uniting quantum mechanics with gravity. Should be a doddle. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. But even where the living is easy, polygamy creates the problem of young men without women - which tends to be socially destabilizing and favors raiding and warfare. Even in the muslim nations where a man can have as many as four wives, polygamy tends to be rare except where there is a lot of tribal warfare. In Utah where there are fundamentalist Mormon towns, boys sadly tend to be forced out on their own in their early teens. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 17 April 2014 09:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. But even where the living is easy, polygamy creates the problem of young men without women - which tends to be socially destabilizing and favors raiding and warfare. Even in the muslim nations where a man can have as many as four wives, polygamy tends to be rare except where there is a lot of tribal warfare. In Utah where there are fundamentalist Mormon towns, boys sadly tend to be forced out on their own in their early teens. Brent, that isn't a but. Try starting with And when you want to add something to what I said, and save but for when you are disagreeing with something. OK? Please? To answer your point, that is probably true. People tend to go for short term gain, as any environmentalist will tell you. No one said polygamy will maximise global happiness, merely that it's a viable reproductive strategy in some situations. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
I had always thought NZ got a blast from Antarctica during part of the year? Having coal, first, then indoor heat from methane gas, and electric baseboard heating, we have diverged much from monogamy, me thinks, or my adolescence would have been considered paradisiacal, though not, I fear, from young females, so I am wondering if the temperature thing is spot on? Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Polygamy is common for most mammals Because most mammals don't extend their range from Africa to the Arctic. As I said, there's a tendency towards polygamy in hot countries, but it wouldn't work for humans in cold ones because more parental investment is required to rear offspring successfully. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Bruno, Litz and everyone: I want to say sorry form muy arrogance and disrespect. The arguments remain. El 15/04/2014 00:37, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com escribió: 2014-04-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Wow I forgot this argument. With arguments so ellaborated and complete like this I can say nothing against. Note for machines: This is what we the humans call sarcasm. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Thank you. Could you now please state the arguments plainly, so I can see what they actually are, shorn of the arrogance and disrespect. Also I would appreciate a considered response to my arguments. ---Liz's arguments, restated for your convenience--- On top of avoiding suffering for me and the potential child, there is also the fact that it is natural for females to spontaneously abort unwanted offspring. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom, including humans. Men don't like the idea that women might have control over their own bodies, they want passive incubators who will just say yes master, I will spread your genes - that's the inner voice Alberto apparently wants me to have and listen to, but I actually have another one. I *thought* I was listening to my inner voice, I just couldn't marshal my thoughts sufficiently to put it into words earlier. It wasn't the yes master voice that Alberto is talking about, the voice that says hop into bed with this plausible rogue then suffer the consequences when he leaves you holding the baby. I have another, more sensible, inner voice, also the product of millions of years of evolution, that says Well, he's gone and left me up the duff and in the lurch... but I can do better than this. Rather than ruin my life and the life of the person this bunch of cells will grow into if I let it, instead I'm going to cut my losses and try again. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: Hi Alberto, What in my reasoning steps is wrong? I find a number of problems with your reasoning: 1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter the environment, constantly changing the fitness function. No. living beings do not optimize fitness. I didn't say that. What I said is that their interaction with the environment changes the fitness function and this tends to increase complexity. they execute adaptations. if the fitness function changes, this does no change the behavour unless the change has been produced on the past and it has developped an adaptation to change. For example it is true that people, or for the matter many animals try to reproduce as fast and with as much number as possible when in uncertainty conditions and the oppossite: in a ambient of security they are more selective. That is because both ambients have existed in the past. An we developped dlexible strategies. Here enter the prosperity variable that you mention below. but what change that? these are second or third derivates that do not change the whole picture. It makes it very hard to reason about what is in line or not with the reproductive program. Likely, homosexuality, abortions and the decision of some people to not have children are actually part of the program. So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure speculation of course -- just like yours. Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the concept of cheating (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If we look for the nous, then it would make more sense to learn from pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters with sex if they brought them some meat. That is the strategy of the whore that is the less desirable for a woman. For obvious reasons. it happens when women are in very bad conditions of insecurity. You generalise too much. It is horrible when women are forced into prostitution, of course, but the general shame associated with it is a cultural norm. Some cultures have it, some don't. I know a social worker who interacted with many prostitutes. Many of them are not depressed, addicted or doing anything against their will. They like the idea of making a lot of money, buying a nice house and not having to work for decades in a boring job. Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing that these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?. The fact that we are towards it. I think that the aspiration of civilisation should be to allow humans to dream and transcend their current condition. I imagine a more advances civilisation being much less concerned with sexual norms. 2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources for them at the
Re: Climate models
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Alberto, So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure speculation of course -- just like yours. Biologists call your survival mode r-strategists (for r-selection). The other mode, involving extensive investment in offspring are known as K-strategists. Humans are inveterate K-strategists. Rabbits (or cockroaches) are r-strategists. The r and the K come from the logistic equation dx/dt = rx(1-x/K) where r is the reproductive rate (net of births deaths) and K is the environmental carrying capacity. Nice. Thanks Russell! Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 15 Apr 2014, at 00:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-14 17:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Same for machine, I show that self-relatively correct machine can't avoid the presence of a fist person point of view, with qualitative properties, and this when using only the most classical definition of knowledge. It is your prejudice on the machines which makes you feel that such an hypothesis would be a reductionism. But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be machines at the image and likeness of themselves? On the contrary, I challenge the comp hypothesis. At first sight I refute it, but then I shows that the math illustrates it is too premature to say that it is refuted. How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything else? how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the only way is to talk in its own language. Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and produce other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of natural selection: machines have other machines, and these machines have been selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation fitness can be assimilated to the number and strength of the child machines produced. There are two kind of machines 1 and 2. both produce third copies of themselves. Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the very nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1 and machine 2 get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation of copies. When the main program find that there is no copies produced for whatever reason, it is logical that natural selection have produced the following automatic strategies: 1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information in order to try to make the reproduction mechanism to work. 2) if this does not work, machine 1 and 2 will transfer information with other machines 2 and 1 respectively. infidelity 3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat indefinitely. 1 2 3 again and again. Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I may call adolescence , characterized by a look for couples, trying to be attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other type as possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in the middle. and for living in the urgence of the present. This is realized in the form of ridculous display of power, false intelligence, egotism, violence, money and beauty, even at advanced age. But also by excessive exhibitions of sentimentalsm hate and whatever that permits the creation of gangs. Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it adult responsiblity and devotion to past and future generations since natural selected algoritms of the machines must cover second and third level of fitness parameters by making sure that the society of machines work well and will work well for the future generations. If this is not covered with proper machine activities then no matter the number of machines produced in the next generation, if the society dies a few generations later, the machine fitness will be zero. The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but because you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you hate and repress what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation as machines what is at stake I think you confuse me with someone else. I am a logician. All what I say is that IF we are machine, then Plato's theology and the mystic is more rational than Aristotle and the materialists/ naturalist. So you
Re: Climate models
On 4/15/2014 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing that these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?. The fact that we are towards it. I think that the aspiration of civilisation should be to allow humans to dream and transcend their current condition. I imagine a more advances civilisation being much less concerned with sexual norms. Polygamy, freely chosen, is probably a better system than serial monogamy - which is what tends to be practiced by wealthy men in the west. Robert Wright makes the case polygamy was banned in the west as a populist measure to ensure that almost all men could find a wife; which makes for a more stable society. But it actually restricts women's choices and goes against biological evolution. He quotes Gloria Steinem as having said, I'd rather be Robert Kennedy Jr's second wife than Pee Wee Herman's first. Of course polygamy as actually practiced in cults and Afghanistan tends to be forced on very young girls, and not freely chosen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/15/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read what I wrote. Machine intelligence is not a question of brickology. Intelligence is not something which can be engineered. It is a question of exploration of some reality, and it is a question of us being sufficiently inetlligent to recognize intelligence here and there along that exploration. Are you saying we cannot build an intelligent machine? Or are you saying we can only build a machine capable of learning to be intelligent? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
This paper is the best I have seen as a method to construct a real AI: http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf It is already built, it is just a matter of scaling it up But don't assume that such AI will perceive the same physical world as we do! On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Read what I wrote. Machine intelligence is not a question of brickology. Intelligence is not something which can be engineered. It is a question of exploration of some reality, and it is a question of us being sufficiently inetlligent to recognize intelligence here and there along that exploration. Are you saying we cannot build an intelligent machine? Or are you saying we can only build a machine capable of learning to be intelligent? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Pair bonding. A concept offered up by Ashly Montague. I don't think that many women would be thrilled with polygamy. They do much better with serial relationships. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 4/15/2014 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, inlow density coutries in harsh conditions or in societieswhere violence is increasing Do you thing that theseconditions are in the aspirations of the civilizedsociety?. The fact that we are towards it. I think that the aspiration of civilisation should be toallow humans to dream and transcend their current condition. Iimagine a more advances civilisation being much less concernedwith sexual norms. Polygamy, freely chosen, is probably a better system than serial monogamy - which is what tends to be practiced by wealthy men in the west. Robert Wright makes the case polygamy was banned in the west as a populist measure to ensure that almost all men could find a wife; which makes for a more stable society. But it actually restricts women's choices and goes against biological evolution. He quotes Gloria Steinem as having said, I'd rather be Robert Kennedy Jr's second wife than Pee Wee Herman's first. Of course polygamy as actually practiced in cults and Afghanistan tends to be forced on very young girls, and not freely chosen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 13 Apr 2014, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote: On 4/13/2014 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Apr 2014, at 01:32, meekerdb wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. ? This seems like semantic nit-picking. Because you can't put a precise frontier do you really want to say they are not different? I see a difference at some level, but in the development of life, I don't se any frontier. All right, let us say that after the invention of the ribosomes and DNA-proteines relation, it is no more Darwinian evolution. The point is that they were not inventions. I guess you mean that they were not human invention, but that beg the question. Do you want to obscure the distinction between invention and random variation? I am not sure that the random variation plays the key role in evolution, some randomly created programs could have an important role, in the development of life. With the eukaryotic cell, it seems we have already an important complex software contained in the genome. Something like the mandelbrot set code can play some important role in the beginning, enough to doubt that it evolution is only random variation. The rest is deliberate attempt to eat, and mate, through variation of the molecular means to address such goals. And deliberate attempts to invent. Specifically, in the case under consideration, attempts to invent beings that would realize our ideals, but would be suited to travel to other planets and prosper there. It will be us. We will be those beings. In the long run, we will transform ourselves and expand. Meanwhile such robots will prepare the places where we will live (be processed). What is different between the success of a new protein, and a new human tool. The man tried to get the apple in the tree and eventually use a stick and get it, and then (perhaps much later) he realize he can strike also the beast going for the apple, etc. The difference is that one is selected from random variation and the other is invented, possibly by evaluating, in thought, random ideas of tools. In practice the difference is that the latter is much faster. Over the last few millenia, cultural and technological evolution has far outstripped Darwinian evolution. Is that not already the case with the invention of the nerve system? I see this as a question of degree. There are programs and meta- programs, local goals and global general goals, etc. Darwinian evolution is mixed with the active products of that evolution, so I am not sure we can so easily distinguish some pure random selection from the activity of what has been selected. Bruno Brent Very similar things appear at the molecular level, and at many possible biological meta-levels. I am not sure you can put a precise frontier between Darwinism and free-will. The Darwinian evolution has selected quickly machines/ programs having goals: eating enough, mating enough, and avoiding being eaten (to much). Then free-will and deliberate action becomes a matter of will and chance. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Climate models
2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be machines at the image and likeness of themselves? How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything else? how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the only way is to talk in its own language. Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and produce other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of natural selection: machines have other machines, and these machines have been selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation fitness can be assimilated to the number and strength of the child machines produced. There are two kind of machines 1 and 2. both produce third copies of themselves. Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the very nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1 and machine 2 get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation of copies. When the main program find that there is no copies produced for whatever reason, it is logical that natural selection have produced the following automatic strategies: 1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information in order to try to make the reproduction mechanism to work. 2) if this does not work, machine 1 and 2 will transfer information with other machines 2 and 1 respectively. infidelity 3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat indefinitely. 1 2 3 again and again. Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I may call adolescence , characterized by a look for couples, trying to be attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other type as possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in the middle. and for living in the urgence of the present. This is realized in the form of ridculous display of power, false intelligence, egotism, violence, money and beauty, even at advanced age. But also by excessive exhibitions of sentimentalsm hate and whatever that permits the creation of gangs. Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it adult responsiblity and devotion to past and future generations since natural selected algoritms of the machines must cover second and third level of fitness parameters by making sure that the society of machines work well and will work well for the future generations. If this is not covered with proper machine activities then no matter the number of machines produced in the next generation, if the society dies a few generations later, the machine fitness will be zero. The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but because you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you hate and repress what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation as machines what is at stake So you not only are machines, but a degraded form of machines if you disobey your inner program. But I do not expect that machines like you, victims of a indoctrination virus realize that simple reasoning. I told here about what is different in contraception from abortion. The rest of the effects are the same. Among them, and relevant for machines like you is the knowledge and information that will be undoubtedly lost and the knowledge that we will simple not gain in the future due to the population limitation and reduction and thus the loss of collective intelligence, also due to the inherent limitations of the adolescent phase. Best wishes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. And I should believe that inner sense because...? Well, I can answer that - or rather, I can answer it in the negative. We should not believe that inner voice. Because that inner voice is the result of Evolution, which has done a job that is only just good enough to get by, to make us create the next generation willy-nilly. Evolution tells us to get knocked up as quickly as possible, evolution tells us to stuff our faces with sugary food, evolution tells us that the lines with the arrowheads going opposite ways aren't the same length. It tells us to die when our bile duct gets blocked, rather than have keyhole surgery. It tells us to go blind rather than have our cataracts removed. It tells us to fall off cliffs rather than wear glasses, to be eaten rather than create fire to scare of predators, to starve to death rather than develop weapons. Yes, we have silenced this nous, this voice of unreason, this voice that would tell us to live with whatever handicaps chance has dealt out, which tells us to have children and then die, no matter who we have them with, no matter how badly they fare as a result. Because that's all evolution can see. A blind watchmaker is likely to make defective watches that only occasionally work. We have the sense to see further than that, and to say, no, THIS is wrong - the blind hand dealt to us by evolution is what is wrong, and we have the nous to put it right. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
What in my reasoning steps is wrong? That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. You are ideologically sick. What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect. I repeat: Forget the literature. What in my reasoning steps is wrong? 2014-04-14 10:25 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. And I should believe that inner sense because...? Well, I can answer that - or rather, I can answer it in the negative. We should not believe that inner voice. Because that inner voice is the result of Evolution, which has done a job that is only just good enough to get by, to make us create the next generation willy-nilly. Evolution tells us to get knocked up as quickly as possible, evolution tells us to stuff our faces with sugary food, evolution tells us that the lines with the arrowheads going opposite ways aren't the same length. It tells us to die when our bile duct gets blocked, rather than have keyhole surgery. It tells us to go blind rather than have our cataracts removed. It tells us to fall off cliffs rather than wear glasses, to be eaten rather than create fire to scare of predators, to starve to death rather than develop weapons. Yes, we have silenced this nous, this voice of unreason, this voice that would tell us to live with whatever handicaps chance has dealt out, which tells us to have children and then die, no matter who we have them with, no matter how badly they fare as a result. Because that's all evolution can see. A blind watchmaker is likely to make defective watches that only occasionally work. We have the sense to see further than that, and to say, no, THIS is wrong - the blind hand dealt to us by evolution is what is wrong, and we have the nous to put it right. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: What in my reasoning steps is wrong? The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice. That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. You are ideologically sick. What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect. So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case, I suppose) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
It is clear in the reasoning. What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is produced is wrong? it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner program ( I tell you in machine terms, that is the level that people here understand) The consequences are clearly expressed above. I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary numbers? Modal logic? these are the consequences at the social level. At the personal level the consequences of not believe the inner voice that is, going against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines, going against the goals of your own inner program is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. It is necessary that I explain why? 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: What in my reasoning steps is wrong? The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice. That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. You are ideologically sick. What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect. So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case, I suppose) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case, I suppose) By the way. Do you know what ad-hominem mean? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: What in my reasoning steps is wrong? The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice. The price for you to not believe the inner voice that is, going against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines, going against the goals of your own inner program is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively, the diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons, unless some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it. If you like I can also explain why going against own nature produces unhapiness in computational terms. Anyone can understand it naturally, but not the machines that are here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 14 April 2014 22:56, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case, I suppose) By the way. Do you know what ad-hominem mean? Attacking the person rather than their arguments. Which is what you were doing. The pride of reason You are ideologically sick. childish ignorance hypocrisy Were some of the terms you used. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: What in my reasoning steps is wrong? The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice. The price for you to not believe the inner voice that is, going against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines, going against the goals of your own inner program is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively, the diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons, unless some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it. You haven't given me any reasoning steps. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Ok. forget me 2014-04-14 13:09 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: What in my reasoning steps is wrong? The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice. The price for you to not believe the inner voice that is, going against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines, going against the goals of your own inner program is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively, the diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons, unless some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it. You haven't given me any reasoning steps. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Hi Alberto, What in my reasoning steps is wrong? I find a number of problems with your reasoning: 1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter the environment, constantly changing the fitness function. So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure speculation of course -- just like yours. Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the concept of cheating (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If we look for the nous, then it would make more sense to learn from pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters with sex if they brought them some meat. 2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources for them at the expense of the majority. So you say look at how evolution works, you just have to follow it's simple logic. But then you also claim that evolution needs some tweaks. Or instead you believe in some random cultural virus that infected us. Then you have to let evolution do its work: wether we can survive it or we are not a viable species. Because this virus is exploiting precisely the same system that contains your biological program. If the nous is real, then we'll be fine. Otherwise, your solution is to take the matter into your own hands. Precisely the same type of solution of the people who say no thanks to having children. How can you possibly know that your nous is not just another virus? 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious that the niche that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this. The research so far seems to contradict your hypothesis. There are several studies on this topic, but for example: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/7/2/131.short Best, Telmo. That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. You are ideologically sick. What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect. I repeat: Forget the literature. What in my reasoning steps is wrong? 2014-04-14 10:25 GMT+02:00 LizR
Re: Climate models
On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Same for machine, I show that self-relatively correct machine can't avoid the presence of a fist person point of view, with qualitative properties, and this when using only the most classical definition of knowledge. It is your prejudice on the machines which makes you feel that such an hypothesis would be a reductionism. But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be machines at the image and likeness of themselves? On the contrary, I challenge the comp hypothesis. At first sight I refute it, but then I shows that the math illustrates it is too premature to say that it is refuted. How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything else? how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the only way is to talk in its own language. Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and produce other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of natural selection: machines have other machines, and these machines have been selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation fitness can be assimilated to the number and strength of the child machines produced. There are two kind of machines 1 and 2. both produce third copies of themselves. Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the very nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1 and machine 2 get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation of copies. When the main program find that there is no copies produced for whatever reason, it is logical that natural selection have produced the following automatic strategies: 1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information in order to try to make the reproduction mechanism to work. 2) if this does not work, machine 1 and 2 will transfer information with other machines 2 and 1 respectively. infidelity 3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat indefinitely. 1 2 3 again and again. Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I may call adolescence , characterized by a look for couples, trying to be attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other type as possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in the middle. and for living in the urgence of the present. This is realized in the form of ridculous display of power, false intelligence, egotism, violence, money and beauty, even at advanced age. But also by excessive exhibitions of sentimentalsm hate and whatever that permits the creation of gangs. Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it adult responsiblity and devotion to past and future generations since natural selected algoritms of the machines must cover second and third level of fitness parameters by making sure that the society of machines work well and will work well for the future generations. If this is not covered with proper machine activities then no matter the number of machines produced in the next generation, if the society dies a few generations later, the machine fitness will be zero. The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but because you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you hate and repress what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation as machines what is at stake I think you confuse me with someone else. I am a logician. All what I say is that IF we are machine, then Plato's theology and the mystic is more rational than Aristotle and the materialists/naturalist. So you not only are machines, but a degraded form of machines if you disobey your inner program. But I do not expect that
Re: Climate models
On 4/14/2014 3:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It is clear in the reasoning. What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is produced is wrong? it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner program ( I tell you in machine terms, that is the level that people here understand) The consequences are clearly expressed above. I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary numbers? Modal logic? these are the consequences at the social level. At the personal level the consequences of not believe the inner voice that is, going against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines, going against the goals of your own inner program is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. It is necessary that I explain why? No it's not necessary to explain why all those dire consequences happen - because they don't. Brent True, secular values can turn a civilization inside out. In post-Christian Europe, entire nations have been plunged into endemic health, skyrocketing education and hopelessly low rates of violent crime. --- Austin Dacey, NY Times 3 Feb 2006 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape. There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males. Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I recommend the book by Jared Diamond Why is Sex Fun?. Brent Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious that the niche that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape. There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males. Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I recommend the book by Jared Diamond Why is Sex Fun?. You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole. Added your recommendation to my reading list. Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many of the sexual behaviours that are considered unnatural or deviant by our religious friends. Thanks Telmo. Brent Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious that the niche that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape. There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males. Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I recommend the book by Jared Diamond Why is Sex Fun?. You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole. Added your recommendation to my reading list. Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many of the sexual behaviours that are considered unnatural or deviant by our religious friends. That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these deviant freaks of nature unholy! :-) PGC Thanks Telmo. Brent Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious that the niche that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape. There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males. Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I recommend the book by Jared Diamond Why is Sex Fun?. You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole. Added your recommendation to my reading list. Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many of the sexual behaviours that are considered unnatural or deviant by our religious friends. That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these deviant freaks of nature unholy! :-) PGC Sex between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing. But between a man and a woman and a dog, a goat, and two chickens it's fantastic! --- Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/14/2014 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. Doesn't that make you wonder if Alberto has raised any kids? Did he tell them to follow their nous, go forth and mulitiply...that's what hormones are for...if you weren't supposed to be pregnant at 14 God wouldn't have made you fertile. If he has any, I'm sorry for them. Brent P.S. If anyone's interested I have four children, two grandchildren, and one great grandchild. And they're all doing just fine. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: Hi Alberto, What in my reasoning steps is wrong? I find a number of problems with your reasoning: 1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is. Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter the environment, constantly changing the fitness function. No. living beings do not optimize fitness. they execute adaptations. if the fitness function changes, this does no change the behavour unless the change has been produced on the past and it has developped an adaptation to change. For example it is true that people, or for the matter many animals try to reproduce as fast and with as much number as possible when in uncertainty conditions and the oppossite: in a ambient of security they are more selective. That is because both ambients have existed in the past. An we developped dlexible strategies. Here enter the prosperity variable that you mention below. but what change that? these are second or third derivates that do not change the whole picture. So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure speculation of course -- just like yours. Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the concept of cheating (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If we look for the nous, then it would make more sense to learn from pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters with sex if they brought them some meat. That is the strategy of the whore that is the less desirable for a woman. For obvious reasons. it happens when women are in very bad conditions of insecurity. Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing that these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?. The fact that we are towards it. 2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources for them at the expense of the majority. So you say look at how evolution works, you just have to follow it's simple logic. But then you also claim that evolution needs some tweaks. No evolution is doing its work. Many civilization have died by its own merits and men continued to survive. What need a fix is THIS civilization that I don´t want to die. Or instead you believe in some random cultural virus that infected us. Then you have to let evolution do its work: wether we can survive it or we are not a viable species. Because this virus is exploiting precisely the same system that contains your biological program. If the nous is real, then we'll be fine. Otherwise, your solution is to take the matter into your own hands. Precisely the same type of solution of the people who say no thanks to having children. How can you possibly know that your nous is not just another virus? My nous is your and is the one of all the people is the commons sense, the human nature. It is the species-specific mental habilities that everyone have and include inmediate judgements: The blue sky is beatiful, It is bad to kill, .
Re: Climate models
On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Thank you Bruno! I'd forgotten that HUGE argument in my favour - on top of the avoiding suffering for me and the potential child, there is also the fact that it is natural for females to spontaneously abort unwanted offspring. How could I have forgotten that? It happens all the time in the animal kingdom, and there is evidence it happens amongst humans, too (why not indeed?) Men are scared of this fact! They don't like the idea that women might have control over their own bodies, they want passive incubators who will just say yes master, I will spread your genes - that's the inner voice Alberto wants me to have, but by God I actually have another one! I *thought* I was listening to my inner voice, I just couldn't marshal my thoughts sufficiently to put it into words. It wasn't the stupid yes master voice that Alberto is going on about, the voice that says hop into bed with this plausible rogue then suffer the consequences when he leaves you in the lurch - I have another more sensible inner voice that says I can do better than this, I'm going to cut my losses and try again. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
2014-04-14 17:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Same for machine, I show that self-relatively correct machine can't avoid the presence of a fist person point of view, with qualitative properties, and this when using only the most classical definition of knowledge. It is your prejudice on the machines which makes you feel that such an hypothesis would be a reductionism. But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be machines at the image and likeness of themselves? On the contrary, I challenge the comp hypothesis. At first sight I refute it, but then I shows that the math illustrates it is too premature to say that it is refuted. How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything else? how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the only way is to talk in its own language. Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and produce other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of natural selection: machines have other machines, and these machines have been selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation fitness can be assimilated to the number and strength of the child machines produced. There are two kind of machines 1 and 2. both produce third copies of themselves. Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the very nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1 and machine 2 get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation of copies. When the main program find that there is no copies produced for whatever reason, it is logical that natural selection have produced the following automatic strategies: 1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information in order to try to make the reproduction mechanism to work. 2) if this does not work, machine 1 and 2 will transfer information with other machines 2 and 1 respectively. infidelity 3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat indefinitely. 1 2 3 again and again. Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I may call adolescence , characterized by a look for couples, trying to be attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other type as possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in the middle. and for living in the urgence of the present. This is realized in the form of ridculous display of power, false intelligence, egotism, violence, money and beauty, even at advanced age. But also by excessive exhibitions of sentimentalsm hate and whatever that permits the creation of gangs. Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it adult responsiblity and devotion to past and future generations since natural selected algoritms of the machines must cover second and third level of fitness parameters by making sure that the society of machines work well and will work well for the future generations. If this is not covered with proper machine activities then no matter the number of machines produced in the next generation, if the society dies a few generations later, the machine fitness will be zero. The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but because you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you hate and repress what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation as machines what is at stake I think you confuse me with someone else. I am a logician. All what I say is that IF we are machine, then Plato's theology and the mystic is more rational than Aristotle and the materialists/naturalist. So you not only are machines, but a degraded form of machines if you disobey your inner program. But I do not expect that
Re: Climate models
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Alberto, So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure speculation of course -- just like yours. Biologists call your survival mode r-strategists (for r-selection). The other mode, involving extensive investment in offspring are known as K-strategists. Humans are inveterate K-strategists. Rabbits (or cockroaches) are r-strategists. The r and the K come from the logistic equation dx/dt = rx(1-x/K) where r is the reproductive rate (net of births deaths) and K is the environmental carrying capacity. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
2014-04-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of previous generations. It is so important that it is immediate. It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers. On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter. Wow I forgot this argument. With arguments so ellaborated and complete like this I can say nothing against. Note for machines: This is what we the humans call sarcasm. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 15 April 2014 06:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause suffering This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom. You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape. There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males. Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I recommend the book by Jared Diamond Why is Sex Fun?. You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole. Added your recommendation to my reading list. Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many of the sexual behaviours that are considered unnatural or deviant by our religious friends. That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these deviant freaks of nature unholy! :-) PGC Sex between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing. But between a man and a woman and a dog, a goat, and two chickens it's fantastic! --- Woody Allen The meal afterwards isn't bad either. I know it's immoral, but, who can resist fried chicken, stuffed dog and fricasseed Woody Allen? Not me and the goat, that's for sure. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 14 April 2014 22:54, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: It is clear in the reasoning. What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is produced is wrong? it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner program ( I tell you in machine terms, that is the level that people here understand) The consequences are clearly expressed above. I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary numbers? Modal logic? I prefer English, preferably without the digs, histrionics and hyperbole, if you have the time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes doctor or not doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a brick-ologists. I don´t care about your substitution level. I tell you that if you don't get smart and leave your obsessions,, sooner or later a gang of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn your computer and will force you to worship Allah. Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back when they had the power. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 15 April 2014 12:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes doctor or not doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a brick-ologists. I don´t care about your substitution level. I tell you that if you don't get smart and leave your obsessions,, sooner or later a gang of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn your computer and will force you to worship Allah. Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back when they had the power. I usually find that people with this sort of obsession project what they would do onto others, it's similar to the climate change thing where deniers assume all sorts of self-interest, conspiracies and desire to rule the world ... which is exactly what THEY would like to do. It's called thinking inside the box. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:51 PM On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes doctor or not doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a brick-ologists. I don´t care about your substitution level. I tell you that if you don't get smart and leave your obsessions,, sooner or later a gang of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn your computer and will force you to worship Allah. Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back when they had the power. So true… had Alberto been born instead Muslim, my guess is that he would have been a Wahhabi intolerant… as it is… seems like he wants to relive the crusades. Start burning some witches perhaps Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models On 4/14/2014 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. Doesn't that make you wonder if Alberto has raised any kids? Did he tell them to follow their nous, go forth and mulitiply...that's what hormones are for...if you weren't supposed to be pregnant at 14 God wouldn't have made you fertile. If he has any, I'm sorry for them. Brent P.S. If anyone's interested I have four children, two grandchildren, and one great grandchild. And they're all doing just fine. Congratulations on helping raise what sounds like a loving family And I am happy for you that all are doing fine; Life, health and happiness truly are also blessings... just... not in the way Alberto seems to firmly believe - rather I should say KNOWS -- himself to understand. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models On 15 April 2014 12:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes doctor or not doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a brick-ologists. I don´t care about your substitution level. I tell you that if you don't get smart and leave your obsessions,, sooner or later a gang of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn your computer and will force you to worship Allah. Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back when they had the power. I usually find that people with this sort of obsession project what they would do onto others, it's similar to the climate change thing where deniers assume all sorts of self-interest, conspiracies and desire to rule the world ... which is exactly what THEY would like to do. It's called thinking inside the box. Or in Alberto’s case thinking inside the last standing ramparts surrounded by hordes of brown infidels threatening the walls of his one true faith. Based, on parsing his missives, I am beginning to think he suffers his life lived in a siege mentality… it must be like living in hell, when you think about it. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. Is it? I am looking around my living room, and all the objects I see seem to be extensions of my body. There's a box of paracetamol, a molecule that perfectly fits my biochemistry to stop making me feel headaches. There's headphones, that perfectly mach my human ears. There are human-sized chairs and tables, books, etc. The lamps emit light in the visible spectrum, to match the receptors in my retinas. From gene to protein to cell to organ to organism to house to city... You can draw a line somewhere, but it feels a bit arbitrary. Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 13 Apr 2014, at 01:32, meekerdb wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. ? All right, let us say that after the invention of the ribosomes and DNA-proteines relation, it is no more Darwinian evolution. The rest is deliberate attempt to eat, and mate, through variation of the molecular means to address such goals. What is different between the success of a new protein, and a new human tool. The man tried to get the apple in the tree and eventually use a stick and get it, and then (perhaps much later) he realize he can strike also the beast going for the apple, etc. Very similar things appear at the molecular level, and at many possible biological meta-levels. I am not sure you can put a precise frontier between Darwinism and free-will. The Darwinian evolution has selected quickly machines/ programs having goals: eating enough, mating enough, and avoiding being eaten (to much). Then free-will and deliberate action becomes a matter of will and chance. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/13/2014 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Apr 2014, at 01:32, meekerdb wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. ? This seems like semantic nit-picking. Because you can't put a precise frontier do you really want to say they are not different? All right, let us say that after the invention of the ribosomes and DNA-proteines relation, it is no more Darwinian evolution. The point is that they were not inventions. Do you want to obscure the distinction between invention and random variation? The rest is deliberate attempt to eat, and mate, through variation of the molecular means to address such goals. And deliberate attempts to invent. Specifically, in the case under consideration, attempts to invent beings that would realize our ideals, but would be suited to travel to other planets and prosper there. What is different between the success of a new protein, and a new human tool. The man tried to get the apple in the tree and eventually use a stick and get it, and then (perhaps much later) he realize he can strike also the beast going for the apple, etc. The difference is that one is selected from random variation and the other is invented, possibly by evaluating, in thought, random ideas of tools. In practice the difference is that the latter is much faster. Over the last few millenia, cultural and technological evolution has far outstripped Darwinian evolution. Brent Very similar things appear at the molecular level, and at many possible biological meta-levels. I am not sure you can put a precise frontier between Darwinism and free-will. The Darwinian evolution has selected quickly machines/programs having goals: eating enough, mating enough, and avoiding being eaten (to much). Then free-will and deliberate action becomes a matter of will and chance. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:51:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. You say some true-ringing things. But things get better or get worse for a people for fundamental reasons. For example when the Indigenous Americans were having their culture discredited and subjected effectively to a dispossession from the lands they had made their own, which is never anything other than a dispossession, and never anything other than a stage of genocide. When all that was happening around them and they were too afraid to speak up about because that was the extent they had been ground down and poisoned by the feelings of guilt, inadequacy, shame and responsibilitythat were the devices of another people with the goal of stealing everything away. In that time for those people, I wonder if there were little voices like yours say everything feels badbut I have NO IDEA why that can be -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 11 Apr 2014, at 19:14, Chris de Morsella wrote: I liken abortion with abuse of hard drugs. It is not nice, but if prohibited, it still happens, but much more often, and always in worst conditions. Better to limit them by education and information, and reduce the harm by health care, and avoid criminalization. IMO - the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is to make affordable contraception widely available as well. No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes according to a recent statistics. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
What's amusing is that he starts off as though he is going to tell us some great general truth - but then immediately falls into a polemic against abortion. And it is doubly amusing because every criticism he makes applies to his favorite organization, the Roman Catholic Church. Brent On 4/12/2014 5:17 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM, you're the one advocating totalitarian hateful agenda here 2014-04-12 12:56 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com: Dear Stephen, That is why we have to help reality, How much time will take before they will stat killing dissidents? there are three phases in a depart from reality: 1- An Utopia with a new language, and the prohibition to talk about the part of the reality that must be hidden: Abort (name with a good image, taken for missile and space launching) is a woman choice. of course, it is my choice to hurt the person next to me in this restaurant, but there is a number of facts hidden by the Utopian ideology in the target case, for the purpose of saving Mother Earth: the consequences: the man that conceived the child becomes unresponsive before the law. Fine for very bad men. Is that feminism? in any case is very close to worstmachism, but anyway. Let's follow. the woman is left alone. She suffer and will suffer all its life. The more consciously and deliberately choose it, the more she will suffer since is not a physical pain, but an act against the mission that his own biology,and therefore, his psychology is for. The more she was not forced by the circunstances (the woman that suffer a natural abort don´t suffer moral pain), and more deliberately choose it, the more she will suffer. And because it was his choice and only his choice, the woman find that the system is adding more insult and more culpabilization to his fault. Nobody share it with her. Not to mention the death children, the population pyramid inversion, the ageing of the population the inherent loss of knowledge and technical progress, the economic crisis that all this produces, The catastrophic consequences of the second phase that follows. 2- A totalitarian regime Because this is verifiable it is necessary to hide the reality. A radical faction takes power, ith the excuse that the utopia does not advance due to the lack of commitment of the moderates and the saboteurs of the Brave New World. This faction produces an increasingly totalitarian regime to centrally planify the long march toward the goals and to repress the deniers. The insults, public harassment, political assassinations etc turn physical: Hate againt the dissenters is promoted in the media. Uncontrolled violent groups attacks. Finanally laws of subversive activities, crimes agains the People, hate crimes, rights criminals, evildoers against thewonderfulandbeneficenteregime. Abort becomes obligatory. No. it is not a joke: it is being tested in China under supervision of the UNFPA. The one child policy not only is killing baby daughters almost ready for delivery now in china under the law , in the number of millions, but will produce a societal catastrophe when the surviving babies will reach adolescence and adulthood and will realize that they will never have a couple. The violence of the gangs of raping adult males with destroy this society. It is know that men when have stable couples an children leave their gangs and reduce his testosterone levels. In the future china will be like some muslim countries where poligamy permits a few affluent people monopolize the women. That is why monogamy produce stable societies with low rates of violence. It will not be the case of China. 3- Reality restores itself The regime languish nobody believe on it, but is a source of power and this power can be climbed by corruption and the use of the fear machine created by the revolutionaries. In fact the revolutionaries were already corrupt, in the most corrupt sense, since the denial or reality is just the root of all corruptions. Finally the regime fall probably by a form of internal revolt or war. Since the regime and the people is not willing to defend themselves, the fall will be undistinguisable from a external invasion, since everithing dead will be invaded. I see elements of the three phases that run simultaneously depending on the location, sector of society, country etc. Of course the Elites are in phase 3: Nobody believe on it, but it is a source of power and legitimacy, since the lower strata believe in the utopia and there are a fair share of activist that scream for a dictatorship. So it is necessary to unmask this ideology before it is too late. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Climate models
On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). deliberately involves free-will. Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that deliberate makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
Hopefully this is a quick response from me.In no particular order. I will suggest that perhaps Lenin and Trosky might have been exactly as bloodthirsty as Stalin. On abortion, it makes me wonder about a woman's character, if she use's abortion as a means of entrapment. On Jesus, I don't worry about him, if he is not coming back. Coming back IS the Christian message. On corporations, please know that they fund the Marxist parties world-wide. Crony capitalism = Corporatism= Neo-Marxism, Neo-Stalinism, Progressivism. Weird but true. It's not just crusty old conservatives anymore. National power is good, except when it's not. Different people's can work together cooperatively, without rescinding their national rights. On medicine, space, energy, all that. The UN sucks because it's the world's worst people. A replacement org would be nice. Why should Kiwi's be under the boots of Yanks, for instance? Mao, Stalin, and the rest promised changed and the proletariat believed it because the leaders told them what they wanted to hear. The same thing works with used car sales persons. Buyer beware please. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:34 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 06:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Actually Marxism is about equal pay for equal work, too. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. Yes, well said. Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. I dunno, Jesus kissed Judas if I remember correctly, or was it the other way around? Probably no tongues though. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. So who's that, then? The Taliban? Al Qaeada? The US government? The CEOs of faceless multinational corporations? Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Stalin, Mao and Hitler may have promised change, but they gave us the same boring old shite we've been getting since the year dot - charismatic psychopathic leaders starting their own cult-of-personality pseudo-religions. No change there, we've been doing it for millennia. I suppose it's possible that Lenin, Trosky and co might have achieved some sort of change if the rest of the world hadn't ganged up on them, but their vision was well and truly scuppered by the nations around them who were utterly terrified that their workers might also demand fair pay, or something equally reprehensible. Stalin just swanned into the resulting mess and took over. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
It's a matter of values or what one values, what is important. I am real good with robotic exploration of the solar system and super telescopes for exo-planets, but I am including the actual history of what really happened, from senators, Mondale, Proxmire, and Kennedy. It cost life with the reduction of funding the shuttle program. The senators involved didn't know this and left it to the engineers to work around the cutbacks. The cutback version of the shuttle did cost people their lives. The same mind set exists today in the democratic party (US not New Zealand) and it's a careless, unjustifiable over confidence. Yes, the moon program was a publicity stunt. But it was funded to succeed, and that's the difference. Well it was never supposed to be a proper space programme, was it? Sending robots to explore other planets is serious space exploration. Landing a man on the Moon so you can crow about how you've won the space race was just a big publicity stunt. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 06:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Well it was never supposed to be a proper space programme, was it? Sending robots to explore other planets is serious space exploration. Landing a man on the Moon so you can crow about how you've won the space race was just a big publicity stunt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 10 Apr 2014, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote: On 4/10/2014 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, Not everyone, apparently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qzOzjRJpaU when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. The road is made of bumps. Things are not simple, and science is not yet born. On the fundamental, many people either believe in fairy tales, or confuse a scientific domain with theology, or eliminate the person. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. It is the continuation of evolution and its exponential speeding up. 99.9% of humanity will leaves this planet in the next millennia, and we can hope Earth will remain some carbon museum. I mean in the normal future. I hope you don't mean leave as a euphemism for die. I think it very doubtful that humans will colonize another planet, much less immigrate wholesale. The nearest earth-like planet is going to be thousands of years away. It might be possible to establish a small research outpost on Mars and the Moon - but they're a lot more hostile than Antarctica and we'd have a hard time establishing a self-sufficient colony there. A king of china decide to put a large rug on the whole land to protect the feet of the subjects, but someone told him it would be more economical to cut small pieces of it and attach them under the feet of the subjects. I don't believe either in terra formation, nor even in planet colonisation, but *in the milennia* the computationalist will get quite different bodies, and lives in cyberspaces, mostly, and no body will leave the planet, only the souls or first person handled by I don't which quantum-micro-bacterial in fashion at that time. Even the receptors we will send will get close to light speed, and our mean of locomotion will be radio waves, laser, etc. We will learn the terrestrial lesson, and not try to adapt the universe to us, but us to the universe, and beyond. I think our aspirations should be (1) live sustainably on this planet I totally agree with this. If not, the program above might abort prematurely. and (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. I don't see how it affects our environment. It just moves parental responsibility around. You comment Telmo here. Adult people can do what they want, as long as they follow the mutual consent rule. Although I do think that children should get enough feminine presence, around them when very young. A nurse at least, or if possible the biological mother. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. I liken abortion with abuse of hard drugs. It is not nice, but if prohibited, it still happens, but much more often, and always in worst conditions. Better to limit them by education and information, and reduce the harm by health care, and avoid criminalization. Bruno Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Cheers! - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots
Re: Climate models
On 11 Apr 2014, at 03:08, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that would affect my life. I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. We have already done so, using little more than cars, planes, ships, trains and power stations. In fact we have already done so using nothing more than muscle power. Look at how many areas -- including the fertile crescent -- have been desertified by human presence. We probably began affecting climate when we discovered fire and began large scale burns to clear brush and move game animals towards hunters, by increasing the area of grasslands. One should not forget that the salt pan deserts of southern Iraq were once the blooming agricultural heartland of ancient Sumeria. And that northern Iraq and much of the entire region was covered by ancient cedar forests. Humans have been altering the face of the earth on a large scale since at least as far back as the beginning of agriculture and I suspect even much earlier than that when we learned to control fire and began to use it to shape our environment. The cyanobacteria changed to planet the most, and rejected the most toxic molecules ever: the oxygen molecules O2. It killed all life species on the planet at that time (according to some), except those developing respiration to burn the O2 into CO2, and build food and candy instead. God created the plants, but then he realized he needs the animals to treat the plants pollution. We multiply quickly, and have to be cautious and responsible not breaking too many cycles in nature, and should pollute the less possible, and for this we have to find ways to avoid private interest interference with politics. About this, the signs are not currently encouraging. Bruno Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On abortion, what I find objectionable (for me) is the percentage of women who have unplanned pregnancies, did so with the intention of 'trapping' a male in a relationship, by lying about or misusing birth control. It speaks to the women's insecurity and character do this. How large a problem this is, is something unknown by me. I haven't researched if it's 0.10% of or 20%? But I call it unethical. What about the male who promises commitment and abandons the female? Equally culpable. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. I liken abortion with abuse of hard drugs. It is not nice, but if prohibited, it still happens, but much more often, and always in worst conditions. Better to limit them by education and information, and reduce the harm by health care, and avoid criminalization. Bruno Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Cheers! - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated
Re: Climate models
On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 Apr 2014, at 03:08, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that would affect my life. I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. We have already done so, using little more than cars, planes, ships, trains and power stations. In fact we have already done so using nothing more than muscle power. Look at how many areas -- including the fertile crescent -- have been desertified by human presence. We probably began affecting climate when we discovered fire and began large scale burns to clear brush and move game animals towards hunters, by increasing the area of grasslands. One should not forget that the salt pan deserts of southern Iraq were once the blooming agricultural heartland of ancient Sumeria. And that northern Iraq and much of the entire region was covered by ancient cedar forests. Humans have been altering the face of the earth on a large scale since at least as far back as the beginning of agriculture and I suspect even much earlier than that when we learned to control fire and began to use it to shape our environment. The cyanobacteria changed to planet the most, and rejected the most toxic molecules ever: the oxygen molecules O2. It killed all life species on the planet at that time (according to some), except those developing respiration to burn the O2 into CO2, and build food and candy instead. God created the plants, but then he realized he needs the animals to treat the plants pollution. Good thing for us that they did oxygenate the biosphere :) There are quite a few anaerobic microbes that have a very low tolerance for oxygen, but thrive in anoxic environments -- I had always assumed that these lineages go back to before the cyanobacteria. Maybe I am mistaken though. Not sure. We multiply quickly, and have to be cautious and responsible not breaking too many cycles in nature, and should pollute the less possible, and for this we have to find ways to avoid private interest interference with politics. About this, the signs are not currently encouraging. No they are not encouraging are they. Chris Bruno Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes Maybe I'm a bit soft because my cat, that lived 12 years with me, died recently. As long as we are all here in good health that shit really doesn't matter. Best, Telmo. I am sorry to hear about your cat - I know how hard it can be to lose a loving pet - they become such a part of our lives that when they are gone a hole is left inside of us that takes time to heal. Chris Thanks Chris! Yes, that's exactly how it feels. Telmo. I once had a Main Coon cat - at over twenty pounds (and not fat) she was the neighborhood boss lol - anyway, after about twelve years her health failed quickly - within months -- and the vet could not do anything. At the very end I held her when she died - she had become so weak at the end, she could not stand by herself anymore. It was a very sad moment for me, heart wrenching really as the loss hit me. Something very similar happened with mine. It was a degenerative kidney disease that is very common in cats. One of the most heart wrenching things for me was watching him trying to jump to places where he liked to stay and not being able to do it anymore. It's like to say, time heals. His journey through this weird reality is over, that's all... It was a good one! Telmo. But of course - they say time heals - more like we forget and new memories move in to occupy our temporal time slice minds. I still vividly remember her though - even though it has been about ten years now -- she was quite a character. Chris Telmo. Now let's work on findings percentages. A percentage is a pure number with no units and ENERGY and POWER have different units, so you can't divide ENERGY by POWER as you did and expect to get anything meaningful, but you can divide POWER by POWER and if you divide 1.5*10^11 watts of POWER by 1.5 *10^17 watts of POWER you get the pure number .01. Or you could divide the amount of ENERGY solar cells produce in one hour, 1.5*10^11 watt-hours by the amount of ENERGY required to operate technology for one hour 1.5*10^17 watt-hours of ENERGY, and we still get the pure number .01. Or you could divide the amount of ENERGY solar cells produce in one year, 1.3*10^15 watt-hours of ENERGY, by the amount of ENERGY required to operate technology for one year, 1.3*10^21 watt-hours of ENERGY, and we STILL get the pure number .01 And that is why I originally said photovoltaics provide .0001% of demand. However you said that in the real world solar cells are much worse than that and the capacity factor is not 1 but is .2, and that seems about right to me, so they only produce 20% of the POWER and 20% of the ENERGY that I used in the above calculation, therefore photovoltaics really only provide .2% of what is required to run the world. You: John you are so full of yourself that you cannot admit you mistook capacity for output Chris, 4 or 5 posts ago it became obvious to me that you are a ignoramus, your total confusion between power and energy and your bizarre belief that solar cells are better if they have a 20% conversion factor than if they had a 100% conversion factor could lead to no other conclusion. However being a ignoramus is not necessarily a devastating state to be in because sometimes ignorance is curable; but more recently it became clear that you are also incapable of learning, or at least learn at such a slow rate it is unmeasurable by me. And unfortunately at the present day medical science has no cure for stupid. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our knowledge. 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet we live better, there are probably more wild animals and more forest. But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and want to save the planet. second: space exploration can not qualify for a religion, at least, not as a totalitarian religion. The Cult to the earth and human sacrifices will ever qualify since it is the most primitive religion. Leaders want commited people and this inevitably demand sacrifices, due to the nature of beings with incomplete information. I explained it in this thread as well as others in this group. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/-LyjqBLxxFY/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send
Re: Climate models
sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our knowledge. 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet we live better, there are probably more wild animals and more forest. But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and want to save the planet.
Re: Climate models
By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with
Re: Climate models
Dear Telmo, Those truths that are often the hardest to learn require the most painful of lessons. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our knowledge. 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area,
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for
Re: Climate models
On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, Not everyone, apparently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qzOzjRJpaU when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. The road is made of bumps. Things are not simple, and science is not yet born. On the fundamental, many people either believe in fairy tales, or confuse a scientific domain with theology, or eliminate the person. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. It is the continuation of evolution and its exponential speeding up. 99.9% of humanity will leaves this planet in the next millennia, and we can hope Earth will remain some carbon museum. I mean in the normal future. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. It might be, plausibly. Bruno Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our knowledge. 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet we live better, there are probably more wild animals and more forest. But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and want to save the planet. second: space exploration can not qualify for a religion, at least, not as a totalitarian religion. The Cult to the earth and human sacrifices will ever qualify since it is the most primitive religion. Leaders want commited people and this inevitably demand sacrifices, due to the nature of beings with incomplete information. I explained it in this thread as well as
RE: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 8:10 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Climate models By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Our very own homophobe. Most homophobes are really running from their own gayness; it is ugly self denial. Perhaps in your case it is different and you just enjoy hating others, but I wonder.. Have you ever considered that perhaps deep down you may harbor gay feelings, which you then feel the need to violently reject? Just saying. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage
Re: Climate models
The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we
Re: Climate models
Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to laugh at you? The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one... 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com: The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's
Re: Climate models
Alberto, Don't feed the trolls... On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to laugh at you? The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one... 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com: The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like
Re: Climate models
2014-04-10 18:28 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to laugh at you? Who's the one insulting ? You are certainly blind to your own writings... The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one... 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com: The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual
Re: Climate models
Stephen hehehe. Ok I will not. Reality can fight alone and will win inevitably against the ones that deny it. The problem is the price to pay in the process 2014-04-10 18:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com: Alberto, Don't feed the trolls... On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to laugh at you? The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one... 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com: The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration
Re: Climate models
Dear Alberto, Cost is always an issue. It cannot be avoided (contra the belief of magical thinkers) but it can be minimized by increasing the efficiency of systems. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Stephen hehehe. Ok I will not. Reality can fight alone and will win inevitably against the ones that deny it. The problem is the price to pay in the process 2014-04-10 18:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com: Alberto, Don't feed the trolls... On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Chris and Guitar, you are funny. Do you believe that these mere insults andd ad-hominem straw man etc, have any effect across internet except to laugh at you? The time of the police state enforcer of ideológicall uniformity has gone since 1995. Oh wait I know why you may need another one... 2014-04-10 18:02 GMT+02:00 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com: The Swiss where many, very many as I understand it, young men are bisexual, seems to argue to the contrary... Seems they found out that sex is sex and for a man to love it must be based on sex. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
Re: Climate models
On 4/10/2014 7:59 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. Thus spake Alberto - who can't get past being a camel. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. You mean like the Catholic Church gained power by promising to save everybody from hell? In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds I thought the crusades were about morality being centrally planified? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/10/2014 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, Not everyone, apparently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qzOzjRJpaU when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. The road is made of bumps. Things are not simple, and science is not yet born. On the fundamental, many people either believe in fairy tales, or confuse a scientific domain with theology, or eliminate the person. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. It is the continuation of evolution and its exponential speeding up. 99.9% of humanity will leaves this planet in the next millennia, and we can hope Earth will remain some carbon museum. I mean in the normal future. I hope you don't mean leave as a euphemism for die. I think it very doubtful that humans will colonize another planet, much less immigrate wholesale. The nearest earth-like planet is going to be thousands of years away. It might be possible to establish a small research outpost on Mars and the Moon - but they're a lot more hostile than Antarctica and we'd have a hard time establishing a self-sufficient colony there. I think our aspirations should be (1) live sustainably on this planet and (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. I don't see how it affects our environment. It just moves parental responsibility around. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Cheers! - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of gay rights will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I
Re: Climate models
On 11 April 2014 02:59, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. And as for travel to other planets or curing disease or linking the world up in a communications web ... or finding a cure for right wing idiots... No, things are far better the way they are. And no doubt I should have kept that no-hoper idiot's child, and then I wouldn't have the two wonderful children I have instead. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
If you are a woman that aborted, you know how much you suffered and probably are suffering. I´m very sorry 2014-04-10 22:05 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: On 11 April 2014 02:59, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. And as for travel to other planets or curing disease or linking the world up in a communications web ... or finding a cure for right wing idiots... No, things are far better the way they are. And no doubt I should have kept that no-hoper idiot's child, and then I wouldn't have the two wonderful children I have instead. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 11 April 2014 08:33, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: If you are a woman that aborted, you know how much you suffered and probably are suffering. I´m very sorry Yes, I suffered a bit, at the time, mostly emotionally - but now I'm just utterly thankful I made the right decision. Just thinking about the life I might have otherwise had (and of course the life the child would have had as a result) gives me the shakes. Plus of course I would have unknowingly killed the two children I now have, in that they would never have been born. And I didn't have to use herbs with unknown side effects or something even worse. Thank God for modern medical knowledge. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:33:54PM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote: If you are a woman that aborted, you know how much you suffered and probably are suffering. I´m very sorry This is an overt generalisation. A number of women have confided with me about their abortions - some have described feeling of anguish and remorse, as your describe, and other are simply thankful that part of their lives (the pregant part, and the thought of a child they didn't want) is over. It sounds like Liz might be in the second camp. It is the woman's choice, and it has to be that way. Society's role is to eliminate barriers to making that choice, and providing services to make abortions medically safe for those who choose to proceed along that path. No more backyard abortions, thank you! Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/10/2014 3:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:33:54PM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote: If you are a woman that aborted, you know how much you suffered and probably are suffering. I´m very sorry This is an overt generalisation. A number of women have confided with me about their abortions - some have described feeling of anguish and remorse, as your describe, and other are simply thankful that part of their lives (the pregant part, and the thought of a child they didn't want) is over. It sounds like Liz might be in the second camp. It is the woman's choice, and it has to be that way. Society's role is to eliminate barriers to making that choice, and providing services to make abortions medically safe for those who choose to proceed along that path. No more backyard abortions, thank you! Of course if the anti-abortion crowd weren't dominated by magical thinking, they'd be supporting Planned Parenthood, passing our contraceptives, and morning-after pills. THAT would reduce abortions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, Not everyone, apparently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qzOzjRJpaU :) when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. The road is made of bumps. Things are not simple, and science is not yet born. On the fundamental, many people either believe in fairy tales, or confuse a scientific domain with theology, or eliminate the person. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. It is the continuation of evolution and its exponential speeding up. 99.9% of humanity will leaves this planet in the next millennia, and we can hope Earth will remain some carbon museum. I mean in the normal future. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. Good point. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. It might be, plausibly. Bruno Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism. What does gay promotion even mean? People can't change their sexual orientation. It's not like you can make some ads or have celebrity endorsements and the kids will be all ohh cool, I'm going to be gay!. I think what's happening here is that we are finally getting rid of gay repression. There's not going to be a different percentage of gay people one way or the other, just less people leading miserable lives for no good reason. first: any menace related with resources and population is easier to sell I will not name Hitler, but they are instinctive concerns since we were stone age hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers were after wild animals and wild plants. They did not produced animals and plants as we produce now. So their primitive mind of limited resources is in the modern man, despite our hability to reproduce and substitute resources with our knowledge. 30.000 years ago, my province was inhabited with 3000 people that depleted complely the resources and had to move to another place every year. Now we are 3.000.000 in the same area, mostly unhabited still. An yet we live better, there are probably more wild animals and more forest. But still there are stone-age minded people that ate human beings and want to save the planet. second: space exploration can not qualify for a religion, at least, not as a totalitarian religion. The Cult to the earth and human sacrifices will ever qualify since it is the most primitive religion. Leaders want commited people and this inevitably demand sacrifices, due to the nature of
Re: Climate models
On 11 April 2014 11:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. Good point. It was featured in the novel The Forever War by Joe Haldeman if I remember correctly, where the world government promulgates a gay agenda in an attempt to solve the population problem (obviously this part of the novel works on the assumption that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice). (Joe obviously didn't realise that the population explosion could be fixed more easily by giving women their rights.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that would affect my life. I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, But nations themselves are fabricated. They are power structures. The more technology progresses the bigger power structures you can create. But we can agree on something: there are people trying to create such global power structures, and this is not good news. I believe that paradise is decentralised. neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Made be men made by women. Then it's Lisp all the way down (sorry, couldn't resist the obscure nerdy joke) Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. I don't know how it feels to have an abortion. The only thing I know is that it's none of my business. It also saddens me when we have the technology to prevent suffering, but this relief is denied because of ancient desert superstitions. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that things are gonna change another world is possible and a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. We can agree on this one. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that gay promotion is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. Telmo. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Telmo, It isn't moralism if it has a measure that can be objectively defined. Hi Stephan, Could you tell me what measure you are referring to? On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2014 15:47, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Liz, Why is there no interest in developing tech to get us off the planet? Why is there a retreat into a bunker mentality? The reason why the UN promotes Global Warming+ abortion+ feminism+ Gay promotion instead of international collaboration for space exploration and expansion has some reasons: Come on man, you say interesting things but then you get stuck in weird religious moralism.
Re: Climate models
On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that would affect my life. I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. We have already done so, using little more than cars, planes, ships, trains and power stations. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.