0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/03/2015 20:18:51Quote from: David Cooper on 25/03/2015 17:23:13In a world where it's hard to get decent employment, why make more unemployables?There soon won't be any work for anyone, but that's no reason to reduce the population to zero.
Quote from: David Cooper on 25/03/2015 17:23:13In a world where it's hard to get decent employment, why make more unemployables?
In a world where it's hard to get decent employment,
QuoteAnd in those parts of the world where food is scarce, why make more mouths?There's enough food at the moment - it just needs fair distribution.
And in those parts of the world where food is scarce, why make more mouths?
But why not reduce it to a level of indefinite sustainability, where everyone has a purpose and an adequate standard of living?
The chant of "unfair distribution" has been quoted for as long as I can remember, and probably further back. It's nonsense. Vast societies. built on enforced fairness (communism), have starved within living memory.
It's easy (except for a few minor problems like the Dust Bowl) to grow huge quantities of rice and wheat in North America, where there are very few people, but extremely difficult to grow anything reliably in Ethiopia, with 21 times the population density of Canada.
You can't change the weather, but you can control the population. What is "fair" about requiring a Canadian farmer to feed people on the other side of the world, who can't pay for their food, simply because they have reproduced beyond the capability of their land to sustain them?
There's an uneven distribution of food, certainly, but in a world where stuff is bought and sold, you can't complain that the distribution is unfair: if you are prepared to pay US/Canadian/Australian prices plus the cost of transport, you can in principle buy anything made or grown in the USA/Canada/Australia, anywhere. That's entirely fair.
The solution is for humans, like every other species, to limit their population density to what the land can support. In the UK, that's about 5,000,000, and my proposal could achieve it in 100 years at no effort, cost or suffering to anyone (except bankers and associated parasites).
but they're just tests of knowledge storage. The real deal is logical thinking and problem solving.
Quote from: David Cooper on 07/04/2015 17:56:19 but they're just tests of knowledge storage. The real deal is logical thinking and problem solving.From your post I assume that what you intended to say was... 'Logical thinking and problem solving' do not really comes from knowledgestorage.
David, even logical thinking and problem solving are essentially part of knowledge storage and retrieval.
That's the reason I hesitate to use the world intelligence any where. If truly necessary, I just use knowledgeable instead.
If you have been raised with descent amount of fairy tale stories (This includes God), you are likely to be irrational (in a conventional way)... And vice versa.
So basically... No one is truly intelligent. It's just how you utilize your time (Or how others make you), and get all the knowledge you can on every aspect (that you deem intriguing) you can. Also, if a person strictly follows thinking from every perspective AND thinking about every possible solution whilst always trying to being rational... It just serves as an add on to a better thinking (Or for an average humans... More intelligent thinking).
I was exposed to plenty of stupid stories with magic in them too, but I hated them all.
Quote from: David Cooper on 04/05/2015 18:35:15I was exposed to plenty of stupid stories with magic in them too, but I hated them all. So, you were never able to use your reasoning to recognise the potency of magical stories to convey moral principles and cultural values. Does such a failure of rational thought on your part not trouble you now?
Royalty is real because we make it so, and it is useful because it prevents phrases like "President Thatcher" entering the language.
Even without any mascot there is no need to introduce presidents into the system - they don't serve any useful role that a prime minister can't already match.
A prime minister is supposed to be nothing more than primus inter pares - the spokesman of Parliament, not the Head of State: a representative, not a leader or a figurehead.
Being several times more intelligent than the entire House of Commons, and only half as corrupt, vain and self promoting, I do not want or need to be "led" by the sort of parasite I would not trust to clean my toilet, but I need a legislature that can debate matters of national interest and define, by way of statute, what behaviours are unacceptable to society.
A figurehead, in contrast, should be just that - someone trained to be nice to other figureheads, and above politics or personal ambition.
By ensuring that training for succession includes a decent education and a bit of military service, we can have a titular head of the armed services with a slightly more realistic approach to international conflict than the average politician - which includes elected presidents. Can you imagine the consequence of a moron or a career liar having the power to declare war? It is only by sheer good fortune that Our Lads were recently led into righteous battle by the towering genius of George W Bush and the scrupulous honesty of Saint Tony Blair!
Power should reside with Parliament, not the prime minister, whose role is as spokesman and chairman, not dictator. If not, what is the point of Parliament? It seems like a very clumsy and expensive irrelevance.
Royal families and the government is nothing to do with this topic and off beat to the thread title.
Will the stupid out breed the clever? is a question that is a stupid question.
Definition of clever and stupid being the actual topic point.
It is not to assume that someone is stupid based on what they know.
IQ being a level of processing speed of information that is not to suggest that given time someone with slower thinking ability could not work out the answer.
I do not believe that anyone is stupid but simply they have had the wrong guidance by bad parenting often resulting to a bad education. Lazy parents do not learn their own children life and often leave their children to learn for themselves.
In the correct environment anyone can be smart.
I would take bare gryll's over Einstein on a ship wrecked island every time.
Logic is simple
Quote from: boxI would take bare gryll's over Einstein on a ship wrecked island every time.If Einstein had been obsessed with collecting survival techniques and Bear had been obsessed with physics, it would be the other way round - you are choosing one of them on the basis of knowledge rather than intelligence.
If Einstein had been obsessed with collecting survival techniques and Bear had been obsessed with physics, it would be the other way round -
I am taking an online data analysis MOOC. Instead of blathering about this, you should run a multiple linear regression on IQ scores since 1950.
Or you should just look to see whether the Republican Party and the Conservatives are withering away.
You say that selfishness does not equate to stupidity.