RedRegard
6mo ago
Germany would have formed a European empire if America didn’t halt the final progression of balance of power politics. Near-to-midterm utility would have probably been maximized but whose to tell the far term prognosis based on the butterfly effect.
RedRegard
7mo ago
I mean that it's not indicative of whether people prefer modern life to Amish life, since the 'switch' doesn't happen without a significant cost. The fact that most people don't join Amish communes might simply signify peoples' preference for the familiar, or for environments they've already made significant investments in that they don't want to abandon.
RedRegard
7mo ago
Yeah, i suppose if you're living somewhere with high inefficiency and waste the numbers will be extremely negative for all but the upper echelons of society. My model of modern society is that much of its value is produced by machines (capital) which only require skeleton crews of mechanics and engineers to maintain, and that asides from those specialists and the capitalists who own the machines, most other people are superfluous. On the other hand, democracy provides a brutish sort of power to those superfluous people, and thus they are able to extract value beyond what their economic potential would otherwise command. So the attempt to internally partition countries along these class lines could be seen as a class warfare attempt to undermine democracy.
RedRegard
1yr ago
Also the welfare state they complain about disproportionately favors them in many regards. A hugely outsized portion of healthcare costs go towards treating the elderly, and they also (probably) get all sorts of old age benefits and subsidies for caretaking, retirement homes, public transportation, and such.
RedRegard
1yr ago
A panopticon society might fix the problem everywhere, but if you're talking about just a single implementation of the legibility fix then you're only resolving the surface aspect of the problem. If you simply wish for parking spaces to not get stolen, sure, it would work. If you're viewing the problem as 'bad actors use intimidation and bullying to create unfair, anti-utilitarian outcomes', then implementing the fix in one place will simply squeeze the problem out elsewhere.
RedRegard
2yr ago
People aren't bothered as much by infectious diseases as in the past so the selection for disease resistance is probably lessened, and we can expect immune systems to weaken or become dysfunctional due to random drift. We have basically removed all selection pressures other than fecundity for modern-day humans, so everything that evolution used to optimize for besides fecundity will be expected to decline.
RedRegard
5mo ago
In the Iraq War documents, incident reports of the US army detail the deaths of 100k Iraqis at the hands of their own forces, of which about two thirds are civilian. These deaths, further, go above what other attempts at documenting war deaths reported, and they provide the most conservative estimate as they only include deaths drawn up in incident reports (i.e. if a helicopter launched a missile at a building and killed a bunch of people, this wouldn't find its way into incident reports, which are based on individual soldier reports of their interactions with the Iraqi public, nor would deaths caused by the chaos and privations of occupation), which are also likely to be biased by the soldiers reporting them.
The lessons learned from this I would say apply to the Israeli military operations. There is likely to be a far greater actual number of deaths than what's reported, as well as a huge number of civilian deaths relative to combatant, perhaps in the area of 2:1 at best, in all likelihood far worse.
RedRegard
7mo ago
You have to account for all the surplus value they generate that gets captured by their employers, landlords, and uncompetitive or exploitative local industries like food.
RedRegard
1yr ago
The DEI stuff is built around internet fads, upper-middle-class pretensions/narcissism, and establishment imperatives. The terms left and right are malleable and relative, so it's both left-wing and not-left-wing. In any case, it's very convenient for the knowledge worker class and the giant institutions they serve, as it not only leaves their deeper structures and economic advantages uncontested (while merely arguing for superficial alterations), it also argues for increased power to be given to these people and institutions, as their credentials, HR departments, teams of lawyers and such are put forward as the necessary cures for 'systemic' bigotry or whatever.
What 'true' leftists, which exist only as fully as true rightists, lament is that there aren't strong working-class involvements in this new left, and indeed it lacks much revolutionary spark at all. It's not about solving or changing modern society so much as it's about keeping things in place and expanding the purvue of some of its most powerful factions. I think it deserves to be treated as a process of its own, best understood as a unique development that began around the 1960's, rather than something that matches patterns as broad as 'leftism'. Although, I can see the propagandistic appeal of accusing them of being false leftists, given that the term left enjoys positive valence with many of the people who would benefit from more working class, economically focused initiatives, such that it's a way of signaling to them that they are missing out. It's a matter of brand manipulation rather than objective understanding.
RedRegard
1yr ago
The purpose of immigrants is to strengthen Canada for the future in absolute rather than relative terms. The power elite figure that they will be able to command greater respect internationally if they grow their population faster than peer countries. I suspect that this is not true, as further technological advance will render low-quality human capital increasingly obsolete in both military and economic terms. We are already seeing economic growth potential increasingly reliant on tech sector success. The commodities-driven market of Canada is expected to fare poorly and there's no apparent alternative. All these masses of humanity have been brought here, and it is for no reason.
RedRegard
1yr ago
Don't Asians have some gene that makes them less likely to get fat (but more likely to get diabetes and heart disease) as well?
RedRegard
1yr ago
Sounds like you need a long-term eugenic environment to cost-efficiently correct this. The social matrix that enables this behavior is itself founded on genetics. To fix a country you must fix its people.
RedRegard
2yr ago
Manipulate housing prices in order to extract rents from all the anti-British immigrants and have the last laugh while they squabble over pronouns and shit?
RedRegard
2yr ago
Humans inevitably impose themselves on the natural world in pursuing their goals, so I would say that I am simply a human who has systematized this particular matter and sees value in bringing evolution, like other natural processes, under human cultivation. The values would have to do with wanting to see generally positive, virtuous behaviors increased in their distribution and negative behaviors decreased, and ultimately this would be because I would rather live in the resultant world rather than our present, declining one, so it would be about serving myself.
RedRegard
7mo ago
Their kids will only be in school for twelve years, while they'll be working for about four or more decades in all probability, so you need to factor that into your hypothetical. I don't know if all things equal out in favor of them producing positive value, but I do know that it's tricky calculating such things and that your own calculations have so far neglected crucial points.
Also I don't think your numbers for the cost of schooling are correct. I thought there was an article on the original SSC saying the annual cost per student is 10k or something.
Western states want to maintain a high ratio of working-age population to retirees and that definitely will help to achieve certain goals. Even if the immigrants are destined for low-wage roles, that means that hiring care workers won't be as expensive (higher labor supply equals lower wages) and current levels of care can be maintained. Another common reason was to address the ostensible post covid labor shortages that business interests in many Western countries were arguing for. And yet a third is that many of these countries feel it's in their strategic interests to make their populations as large as possible, which I've seen French, Canadian, and American establishments explicitly endorse. In reality, I think the first two explanations are serving a few powerful interest groups at the expense of general welfare and future prosperity, and that the third explanation is misled as it's not overall population that matters but high value HBD, but this isn't taken into account by the establishment probably because it serves other purposes to deny. There's also a dark fourth reason, which is that elite interests converge on diverse populations as they are easy to divide and conquer and thus dominate. We do live in an era of anti-competitive corporate consolidation, top-bracket tax cuts, corporate welfare, and persistent privatization of inappropriate industries despite gross failures, whilst the broader populace bickers primarily over matters of racial prestige, so if the elites indeed orchestrated this they've done a good job...
RedRegard
1yr ago
The Liberals have dramatically increased the immigration rate, which certainly has inflated property values. There are good arguments to defend this, among them that the higher property values are a net gain for Canada since the vast majority of property is owned by Canadians and most Canadians are homeowners. It really only hurts renters whose parents aren't homeonwers and therefore won't inherit that wealth. Most young Canadians, even if they rent, have parents who are benefiting from this and therefore shouldn't really complain (although they do).
It's bleak compensation for me if after twenty years of a degenerative enforced lifestyle I receive some wealth from my parents after they die. Yours seems to be an extremely materialistic view: you are placing immense value on greatly delayed net worth maximization while discounting life choices that people are funneled into today. I'd go so far as to say that net worth is of minor value compared to qualitive aspects of lifestyle which do not depend on it so much as on personal and public choice making. A society that chooses to be more healthy and virtuous is better than one which is simply richer, particularly if the riches are withheld until given members reach middle-advanced age. Net worth calculation should take a definite back seat to other matters such as intellectual, physical, and creative enhancement.
RedRegard
1yr ago
As an aside, it's interesting how the apartheid government never even tried to adjust population. Not through white immigration, not through population control programs for blacks, not through attempts to boost the native white fertility rate. Obviously it's a hard problem, but it's interesting that they didn't even try.
It seems like governments mostly focus on solving acute problems rather than long-term progressive ones. The payoff for fixing birthrates wouldn't come for at least twenty years after the fact, only once the added batches of children begin reaching maturity, while the costs would begin immediately. Governments are typically run by people who only expect to be in power for short durations, so for them it's better to deal with staving off coups and electoral defeats. That means focusing on who gets the $$$ and making the right noises.
There's also a weird tendency for normies to deny all matters pertaining to biology in pretty much any context. Possibly, this due to narcisism. Or maybe it's about optimizing for personal social advancement over coordinating against civilization threats. It is as though they sit at the very precipice of oblivion maintaining attitudes of perfect nonchalance. As long as they do not fall in, they are content; and those who do fall in do not have the luxury of further action. That's essentially what happened to the white South Africans, and probably all other fallen societies.
I think you neglect the way in which power factors into status considerations. People would fawn over Elon Musk or an emperor not because they believe such people to be meritocratic but because they hope to receive rewards and avoid punishments. The people at the top of power hierarchies manipulate those below them through various means in order to encourage and shape desirable consensuses. People buy into these for selfish reasons having more to do with personal fitness than group fitness. That's why people who aren't in a position to benefit from or be punished by Elon Musk (random journalists on Twitter) pile on him so relentlessly. They do it because he does not matter to them, but the opinions of their peers and employers do, so they demonstrate commitment to the group consensus in the hopes of impressing other members of the hierarchy.
Also, people often base their status evaluations on personal egotism. People who fancy themselves to be technophilic, market-oriented individuals will argue that Elon Musk deserves utmost respect, while people who fancy themselves to be more artistic and empathic rather than logical will decry him, and this is simply based on how their own qualities are reflected in Elon Musk. They use their perceptions of other peoples' status to feel good about themselves.
I've read that medieval workers averaged 1600 hours annually, while modern people work 1900 hours, and industrial revolution-era workers put in 3000+ (https://tudorscribe.medium.com/do-you-work-longer-hours-than-a-medieval-peasant-17a9efe92a20). The horror stories about the wretched condition of peoples teeth and health in premodern times I've come across also seem to mostly come from the industrial age. I suspect that Malthusianism is partly to blame for declining standards, but also the power that capitalists and landowners gained over the commonfolk. Medieval economic systems were chaotic and inefficient, but they served to protect the peasantry against the ruling class through their illegibility. As the economy became more streamlined and efficient, it also gave the powerful greater leverage over the common people. The maximization of profitability for those at the top led to the sacrifice of complex arrangements that satisfied a broader array of needs for those at the bottom.
On a similar note, I've come to believe that medieval peasants weren't necessarily super different from tribalists in their economic engagement, and also that the distinction between hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists, etc. is somewhat misleading, since most societies derived their nourishment from a motley of sources. Medieval people fished, foraged, hunted, etc., too, and many hunter-gatherers I've read about seem to have engaged in some amount of cultivation, so the categories aren't entirely discrete. In Seeing Like A State, it seems to be indicated that primitive peoples, including medieval peasants, had a complex arrangement of nutrient sources, which depended on access to farms, forests, and streams, but as society became streamlined and living spaces monopolized, they were forced into factories and workshops and fed mono-diets of grain. From there, various vitamin deficiencies and rapid tooth decay ensued.
RedRegard
6mo ago
the vast majority of obesity is caused by neglecting fork-put-downs and overeating. You, unless you have a severe medical condition, are capable of simply not eating at every opportunity
This seems more interested in figuring out where to allocate blame, or castigating people for not being virtuous enough, than concrete results. If you’re a government charged with increasing citizen health then you will get results by doing things like limiting the amount of hunger-inducing additives, sugar, empty carbs in mass market food products, removing junk food vending machines from school hallways and other public spaces, etc. Also, culture and behaviour doesn’t generate spontaneously. Policy choices in the past shaped human behaviours of today. There’s a conspiracy run by corporations focused on manipulating people into being degenerate hedonists.
RedRegard
10mo ago
Despite the ultra-abundant color you added to your screed, aren't you simply preaching to the choir? This basically comes down to usual pro-eugenics stance, the merits of which are well known. To strongman the opposition, I would say that your solution is probably impractical as there are only so many immigrants a country can take in at once, due to issues of providing adequate housing and scaling up healthcare and such, and also only so many immigrants of 'good worth' who are willing to immigrate, especially in scenarios where housing is hugely insufficient and they must pay hefty premiums on their first home. Also, there are likely to be hidden disadvantages to ultra-diverse societies that mirror the current disadvantage you are noting with regard to the British riots; see the BLM riots, Paris riots, and so forth that have occurred in high diverse areas. So it is unlikely that the issue of 'underclass' rioting will go away if only partial eugenic solutions you are proposing are implemented. Furthermore, ethnic division might remain persistent owing to probable ethnogenesis events caused by intermingling. In order to succeed in the goal of reducing the underclass, even greater eugenic efforts would be required, ones that could be scaled up to an extreme degree, and the ethnic aspects you find disagreeable are probably ineradicable and largely based on narcissism.
RedRegard
1yr ago
The disadvantaged groups that get on the 'stack' all have something in common: their qualities act as tribalistic signifiers, which in turn provides a basis for political coordination. This might just be an outgrowth of human evolutionary history, where apes gathered themselves into tribes and warred against rival tribes, mirroring our present political circumstances not by accident but because of the encoding of behavior into genes. We are witnessing the modern potential of ape-evolution.
Mental and psychological disabilities are not close enough to the tribal dynamic to serve as signifiers in this way, so they are not adequate, in the same way, as a basis for political organization. To the extent that policy is made to take these things into account I would say that it's probably driven by higher mental processes and philosophies than by instinctual ape-tribalism.
RedRegard
2yr ago
Having Putin invade Ukraine was the worst possible outcome. Russia is now excluded from Western markets and politically stigmatized, so it will no longer have an incentive to behave itself in interactions with the West. It will become like North Korea, an insular security state that uses terrorism and criminality to get what it can from a hostile global order. Ukraine itself has lost a third of its population, had a large amount of land permanently scarred, and had its economy destroyed, and even if it wins it will find itself with a long-term hostile neighbor. Large amounts of Western capital have been sacrificed to the war effort, and Russia's resources and economic contributions to the world are now for China to take. So economically, security-wise, and in terms of Ukraine's well-being it seems like the war has been a monumental disaster for Western diplomacy.
The Iraq War was because American intelligence thought there really were WMDs and because Saddam had previously lied about them and aroused America's displeasure.
More options
Context Copy link