> Elizabeth Childs <echilds@linex.com> wrote
> Taxation destroys far more in economic productivity than it can ever
> return to its beneficiaries. Getting money from the government is a
> negative sum game. I'd much rather live in a freer economy, where I can
> more easily make my own money.
This is true, only in so far as you can argue that there is *no* long term *personal* benefit, to projects, that are unjustifiable from an industrial viewpoint, but that the government may view as worthwhile exercises (see my recent note regarding the human genome project).
> > You could be poor but if you can come up with cute, funny, strong,
> > a good "rating" by the independent panel (:-)) ... you would have
> > more women after your buns.
> If women were really all that motivated by men's bank accounts,
> struggling musicians would never get laid while UNIX sys admins would be
> the new Don Juans. But the opposite is usually true.
Aha! A bolt of interesting insight. By all logic, women who pursue the "struggling musician" are violating their "prime genetic directive". Now, is there some logic to this (pheromones run amok?), the female desire to "nurture" going off the cliff, "rebellion" against the conventional wisdom?
[Please no flames here, I'm know exactly what I've said and am not trying to dump on anybody's profession, hobbies, etc.]
> the resources that are most important for the health of the children
> are time, care and attention.
Agreed.
> Lots of women make more money than their husbands. Money does matter,
> but it's not the only factor in the resources equation. For many women,
> it's not a factor at all.
> But I think that culture and government are different things.
> I would like to raise my children in a communal culture, but
> culture exists on a small scale and is voluntary.
> But how to create a communal culture? It seems to me that anywhere
> where the same people have had to live with each other for a long time,
> preferably people mixed in age, that a communal culture will develop.
> Many small towns in the US seem to have this type of mutual care, while
> none of the cities seem to.
I would agree with this. If options for immigration/emmigration are limited *and* the community is small enough, then a communal environment would seem to develop.
> Being horny - even really, really, really horny and not able to think
> about anything but women - does not make a man a rapist. If he's not of
> good conscience, it might impel him to steal money so that he could go
> to a prostitute. But a man has to be indifferent to or actively enjoy a
> woman's terror while raping her, and most men find this repugnant.
Again, I would agree with this. In most cases (in modern society), rape is about power or control, not about sex. I would however look back in history, where I doubt that the mercenaries "raping" and "pillaging" were concerned about power or control, but more likely interested in "sowing their seed" (driven by that evil old male sex drive...). We have a modern day example of this in Kosovo. While in some situations, one could argue the rapes may have occured out of a desire for the Serbians to "control" the Albanians, you could also argue that it was a case of the men taking advantage of an pportunity to impregnate women where the women had little to say about the situation.
> Ah, you don't need a panel - what you need is collaborative filtering
> for men. If you like Steve, you'll also like Joe! You could call it
> slamazon.com, where everyone can post their anonymous comments about
> performance, and based on the men you've already slept with, it
> recommends other guys you might like to sleep with.
> Will guys really sign up for that? Is there a subset of women who would?
"slamazon.com" -- brilliant (but it only works for negative reviews)!
Ah, but now you've taken the bull by the horns so-to-speak... There is, obviously nothing to stop women from doing this already (privately or publicly), so there is no need to "sign-up". The only constraint might be the problem of slander/defamation of character.
The only advantage of an "independent board" is that you could exempt them from frivolous lawsuits and/or have some confidence that their opinions were something more than rumor.
> > these senses. It isn't "essential" for individual mating per se, but
> > desirable from the perspective of the survival of a group.
> > [Nature wants to increase the immune system diversity of a species
> > to prevent single diseases from wiping out a flock/herd/tribe/etc.]
> But isn't it desirable for the individual?
NO! It does *me* little good to marry a genetically different individual (it only benefits my children). You have to assume that what is beneficial for my children is beneficial for me as well. ---
Back thee up oh spawn of the devil who wishes to use my body to make more of thine own....
> Because then the offspring inherit a more diverse set of immunities.
This is true! So the net result is that it benefits the survival
of the "genes" that promote genetic diversity (and thus are of benefit
the survival of your offspring) but it does nothing to improve your
own personal survival.
For WHO?!? Not for me, I've got all that I can use already.
> That's why people are attracted to people with foreign accents.
An interesting premise, intellectural feedback into a biochemical analytical computer. This would need to be tested.
I would argue that the biochemical "difference" engine has been intellectually generalized into "anything" different is potentially good. That might explain the preference for foreign accents.
> I have found that it's not too hard to become more informed than my doctors.
Information distribution "rules". The trick is getting the doctors to recognize that you are more informed than they are...
> Genetic engineering in humans will be pretty dangerous for the first
> generation or so.
Very true, there will be things we don't understand about genome
reduction that will not become clear until we have made a few
mistakes. The only answer for those mistakes will be "editing"
methods and/or cryonics.
> For example, what if you give your kid *all* the genes known to
> be associated with intelligence, and find out that in combination they
> produce schizophrenia?
Highly possible, that is why using known "working" combinations will have a high preference. But there will be parents who want to push the envelope!
> Of course I'd want to insure that my kids are smart, but that seems
> like an exceptionally risky area, as it's known that some of the genes for
> intelligence are associated with schizophrenia. So I'd be very cautious
> there.
I think it will be highly likely that the combinations to stay away from will be well documented. We have too many cases in our society of the "square pegs" that we can survey to determine combinations that have potentially pathological consequences.
> Scary thought: at some point, the DNA of celebrities will become a
> valuable commodity, but one that is easily pirated - the code will make
> its way into the underground economy as easily as an MP3 file. So a
> whole generation of kids is going to wind up with a disproportionate
> number that look like the 2015-equivalent of Britney Spears.
Life balances -- as soon as it becomes apparent that B. Spears is the face de jour (year, etc.), the balance will shift in some other direction. No parent is going to want their child looking like 50% of the class in the school yearbook. You might enact "real time" disclosure requirements for children in the pipeline so as to allow you to adjust (against) the prevailing trends.
Robert