Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 18 April 2014 09:14,  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 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
>
> 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

[ghibbsa]

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 
> 
> > 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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King  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

[LizR]

On 17 April 2014 09:22, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King 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, 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

[meekerdb]

On 4/16/2014 2:10 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King > 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

[LizR]

On 17 April 2014 08:24,  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

[LizR]

On 17 April 2014 07:58, Stephen Paul King 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.

Re: Climate models

[spudboy100]

God is dead-Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead-God


yeah, I know, but I had to post it. 



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 16, 2014 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 17 April 2014 02:36,   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

[meekerdb]

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

[Stephen Paul King]

Polygamy is common for most mammals


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 17 April 2014 02:36,  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

[LizR]

On 17 April 2014 02:48,  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

[LizR]

On 17 April 2014 02:36,  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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
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 
 To: everything-list 
 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

[spudboy100]

"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 
To: everything-list 
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

[Bruno Marchal]

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

[LizR]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

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 
To: everything-list 
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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
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

[Stephen Paul King]

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  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

[meekerdb]

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

[meekerdb]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Apr 2014, at 00:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2014-04-14 17:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

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 d

Re: Climate models

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> 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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>
> 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

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

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"  escribió:

>
>
>
> 2014-04-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>
>> On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>>

  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

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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  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

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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 :

 

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

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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

[LizR]

On 15 April 2014 12:51, meekerdb  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

[meekerdb]

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

[LizR]

On 14 April 2014 22:54, 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?
>

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

[LizR]

On 15 April 2014 06:43, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>>   On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-04-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>>  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

[Russell Standish]

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-04-14 17:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  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 machin

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

> 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 j

Re: Climate models

[meekerdb]

On 4/14/2014 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal 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

[meekerdb]

On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote:





On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb 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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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

[meekerdb]

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

[meekerdb]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

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 machines like  
y

Re: Climate models

[Telmo Menezes]

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

Re: Climate models

[Alberto G. Corona]

Ok. forget me


2014-04-14 13:09 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>>
>>> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  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

[LizR]

On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>
>> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  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

[LizR]

On 14 April 2014 22:56, Alberto G. Corona  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

>
> 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

[Alberto G. Corona]

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 :

> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  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

[LizR]

On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

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 :

> On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>>  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

[LizR]

On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> 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

[Bruno Marchal]

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 http://groups.g

Re: Climate models

[meekerdb]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:32 AM, 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.
>

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

[meekerdb]

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

[meekerdb]

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 >:


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 subscribed to the Goog

Re: Climate models

[Bruno Marchal]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

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

[ghibbsa]

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 > 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

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: Bruno Marchal 
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 
>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  wrote:
>
>On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona  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

[meekerdb]

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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
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 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am
 Subject: Re: Climate models
 
 
 

 

 
 
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona  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 : 
 
 
 
 
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 soci

Re: Climate models

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Apr 2014, at 03:08, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: LizR 
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  wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona > 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

[Bruno Marchal]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am
Subject: Re: Climate models




On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona > 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 :

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  
thei

Re: Climate models

[Bruno Marchal]

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 > 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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 11 April 2014 06:45,   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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: Climate models



On 11 April 2014 06:45,   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

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:25 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Climate models

 

On 4/10/2014 5:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 April 2014 03:10, Alberto G. Corona  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. 

 

What compelling evolutionary reasons exist for men to dislike gay men? If 
anything they mean less competition for available women. It would make more 
sense for them to dislike gay women.

Where did you hear that "Feminism is increasing the violence against women" ? 


It's the word on the street where Alberto lives - the 13th century.

 

Yeah… isn’t his next door neighbor, Torquemada.

Chris



Brent




I suppose daring to stand up for ourselves might lead to increased mysogynistic 
violence ... so you're saying it's better to live on your knees than die on 
your feet?

-- 
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

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 13:24, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/10/2014 5:20 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 11 April 2014 03:10, Alberto G. Corona  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.
>>
>>  What compelling evolutionary reasons exist for men to dislike gay men?
> If anything they mean less competition for available women. It would make
> more sense for them to dislike gay women.
>
>  Where did you hear that "Feminism is increasing the violence against
> women" ?
>
>
> It's the word on the street where Alberto lives - the 13th century.
>

Stop making me laugh out loud when I'm surreptitiously reading this forum
at work!

-- 
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

[meekerdb]

On 4/10/2014 5:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 April 2014 03:10, Alberto G. Corona > 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.

What compelling evolutionary reasons exist for men to dislike gay men? If anything they 
mean less competition for available women. It would make more sense for them to dislike 
gay women.


Where did you hear that "Feminism is increasing the violence against women" ?


It's the word on the street where Alberto lives - the 13th century.

Brent

I suppose daring to stand up for ourselves might lead to increased mysogynistic violence 
... so you're saying it's better to live on your knees than die on your feet?


--
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

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 13:08, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>   --
>  *From:* LizR 
> *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  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Yes, it's quite possible that agriculture has changed the climate. I don't
know if any studies have been done on this. It's somewhat more obvious with
industry, which has raised atmospheric CO2 something like 50% in 3
centuries.

-- 
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

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: LizR 
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  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona  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.
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.

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 06:45,  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.

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 06:45,  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.

Re: Climate models

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:09 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
>

It might increase the amount of resources that humanity devotes to
reproduction, because it facilitates gay people devoting their own effort
and resources to that end -- either absorbing part of the effort through
adoption or participating more directly with the help of surrogate mothers
or sperm donors.

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

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 03:10, Alberto G. Corona  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.
>
> What compelling evolutionary reasons exist for men to dislike gay men? If
anything they mean less competition for available women. It would make more
sense for them to dislike gay women.

Where did you hear that "Feminism is increasing the violence against women"
? I suppose daring to stand up for ourselves might lead to increased
mysogynistic violence ... so you're saying it's better to live on your
knees than die on your feet?

-- 
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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by
> men will never ever change.
>

I find this hard to believe, because I am a heterosexual male and feel no
animosity towards gay men.


> There are compelling evolitionary reasons.
>

You could also easily make the evolutionary argument that the natural
inclination of heterosexual males is to encourage male homosexuality
because it reduces the competition for partners.


> 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 :
>
> 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 :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 
 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 > > 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

Re: Climate models

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:48 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>
> 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)
>>
>>
> I guess I will have to "bracket" :) you with the AI crowd*.
>

No problem :)


>
> By the way, I agree with this. I think men created most of the things that
> allow society to exist, because (a) they wanted to impress women, and (b)
> they didn't have to spend almost their entire lives pregnant in order than
> one or two children would survive to adulthood.
>
> "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living
> in grass huts." -- Camille Paglia.
>
> *Girl geeks rule (despite the above comments).
>

Yup, men and women are statistically different. Then individuals are
extremely diverse, and everything is fine as long as we don't try to impose
our lifestyles on others. We see the absurd extremes with chauvinists who
think women should not pursue certain careers and extreme feminists who
think that women should not wear make up if they feel like it.

Telmo.


>
>  --
> 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

[Stephen Paul King]

 Try this: http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~belgin/Population/malthus.html

"Malthus was not content with one classification system for his checks -
or, perhaps, in the overwhelming disorganization of the first Essay, dashed
off at the spur of the moment as it were, he simply lost track of the fact
that he had, in fact, developed two parallel systems. The second, which
took a more moralistic view, divided checks into misery and vice. This
system, like the first, was exclusive, all checks falling into one category
or the other: "In short," stated Malthus, "it is difficult to conceive any
check to population which does not come under the description of some
species of misery or vice," (Essay.. 106). Roughly speaking, these were
checks visited upon man by the outside world, and checks which came from
man himself. Misery included such things as hunger, poverty, and disease.
"Vice," was a concept which Malthus, with sensibilities typical of the
time, was reluctant to define closely. The closest he came to defining vice
explicitly was not until the publication of A Summary View, wherein he
listed the checks of vice that operated in a preventative manner: "the sort
of intercourse which renders some of the women of large towns unprolific; a
general corruption of morals with regard to the sex, which has a similar
effect; unnatural passions and improper arts to prevent the consequences of
irregular connections," (Summary... p. 250). With these delicate terms,
Malthus referred to prostitution, venereal disease, homosexuality, and,
notably, abortion and birth control."

What Malthus seems to have not seen is that resources availability curves
where not a priori fixed. Technology bends the curves...


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona 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.
>
>
>> 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 :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 regressi

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
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)
>
>
I guess I will have to "bracket" :) you with the AI crowd*.

By the way, I agree with this. I think men created most of the things that
allow society to exist, because (a) they wanted to impress women, and (b)
they didn't have to spend almost their entire lives pregnant in order than
one or two children would survive to adulthood.

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in
grass huts." -- Camille Paglia.

*Girl geeks rule (despite the above comments).

-- 
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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear Telmo,
>
>Those truths that are often the hardest to learn require the most
> painful of lessons.
>

Hi Stephan,

Maybe I lack imagination, but I don't see how gays getting married can
cause me pain.


>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:59 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.
>>
>> 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 :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 
 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 > > 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

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona 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.

-- 
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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona 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.


> 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 :
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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 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 
> 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?
>>
>

Re: Climate models

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 11:04, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Marchal  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

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 
 wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Alberto G. Corona  > 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.
>>
>>

Re: Climate models

[meekerdb]

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

[Russell Standish]

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

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 08:33, 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
>
> 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

[Alberto G. Corona]

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 :

> On 11 April 2014 02:59, 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.
>>
>
> 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

[LizR]

On 11 April 2014 02:59, 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.
>

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

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am
Subject: Re: Climate models







On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona  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 :


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 :







On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King  
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 

Re: Climate models

[meekerdb]

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 > 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

[meekerdb]

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.