Phil75231
02-28-2012, 08:13 PM
This thread is based on the following posts from this thread (www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33972): 6,10, 11 16, 17.
There is always a balance of female hypergamy that comes into play, or do you forget man and woman is a partnership, not just in immediate life, but also civilisation. Majority will always rule. The balance in the west is by far swung in favour of a degenerate female hypergamy, an initial indication of a civilisation in decay, created by our own civilisational system. I'm not sure if this decay will catch up to the rising Eastern countries, we'll find out soon enough.
I’m not talking about sex appeal, “game”, and all this picking up women stuff. I’m talking about attitudes and mentalities associated with Alpha-ness (male or female). The relevant issue is human nature itself, particularly how out of date human impulses are in this high-tech (and increasingly so) mode of existence. Mate selection is not directly relevant. Put more simply, it’s the end result that counts in this case, not the process and criteria. Still more simply, if our mate selection processes (for both males and females) is out of synch with our physical environment, then the criteria is superfluous at best, and frankly dangerous at worse.
Just ask yourself why is the East, China, slowly but surely over taking the West?
Probably because China and India finally figured out the right policies that promote economic behaviors that increase their own wealth.
How many single males are in China and India...? How fierce is that 'Dark Triad' competition? In the west, many men are just dropping out of the competition, China and India has reserves still.
Again, mate selection is irrelevant to the ultimate issue, even if it might be an indirect cause of it. The latter is just evo-psych though, which I find unreliable because people can use evo-psych to explain any kind of behavior. Not to mention that it ignores how environment can shape an individual’s behavior.
Sorry Phil, the lower betas and feminist men will always be at the bottom of the rung, propping the system up, rather then leading it.
At best, it’s like being the captain of the Titanic – with the iceberg being technology too powerful for our own good (i.e. our nature is unable to handle it wisely). This time the crew and passengers are the entire human species.
At least our geeks may provide some innovation, that may create the so called service and technological economy. Though it seems pretty useless when China steals that intellectual property, via hacking and bribing.
Technology developed is technology developed – no matter who does it or who gets ahold of it via illegitimate means. I’m sure you’ve heard about nanotechnology et al (to oversimplify it, building robotic microbes). Or the dangers of genetic engineering. If we can do it to other animals, we can in principle do it to humans. If this technology develops, then a person will upgrade himself (or his/her descendants) for his or her own benefit – not humanity’s. It’ll start a genetic arms race. Although just barely possible, we could be facing a situation not unlike graphic novel superhero vs. supervillian stories – which would make humanity even worse off than it is now. Unlike in those novels, the good guys’ aren’t guaranteed to win. Maybe you have more faith in human nature’s goodness than I do. Me? I think genetic enhancement will lead to just this scenario.
Our Alpha female PM that is leading Australia at the moment is doing a very poor job of imitation if you ask me, the polls do not lie, unlike the crafted propaganda of the political masters we all serve. Women just can't pull off the charismatic 'Dark triad', like a man can. Women look like liars when they attempt it, Australia's PM's nick name is "Juliar". Her predecessor on the other hand is loved by the people, using the exact same policies, he is just more efficient, charismatic and intellectually superior at selling and implementing such policy. K Rudd has the gift of the gab, so to speak.
It doesn’t matter if the PM is Julian or Jerry. The point is the behavior itself, not the gender-labels we attach to the behavior. The issue is the behavior itself and the destructive consequences of it (and dare I call it ‘self-omnicidal’?)
If the world was not ready for nuclear weapons we would of perished a long time ago. Neutrino bombs were banned from mass production and use, for a reason. You never know, a disaster could be man made, or nature, from far left or right field...Either way Humans have survived a bottle neck before, a disaster that actually mimicked a nuclear winter, but occurred from nature. Most of our ancestors could be gone in 50 to 200 years, if there's a large enough volcanic eruption or asteroid collision.
We wouldn’t have been ready for it IF we kept our 17th century social and cultural attitudes through well into the nuclear era. Beyond this, the nanotech or biotech is also a potential problem. It takes much less materain investment and $ to manufacture a super-germ/virus – probably for no more than the price of a typical Anglo-world suburban home. That means one small cult-like group or disgruntled individual could, within this century, create lots of havoc. At least making nukes requires billions of $ worth of high-precision machine tools and industrial plant. They also have a lot of institutional and technical safeguards to prevent an accidental launch and certainly to prevent multiple nuke launches at the same time. The potential kill-per-dollar/euro/pound/yen IS getting smaller with time.
Thankfully though our 'Dark triad' men will pull us through such an event.
That’s just a hope, not a valid prediction. The Toba event was not a precision event – it was just raw power destroying the immediate region around the volcano while belching ash, sulfur dioxide, etc. across the rest of the world. Humans DO have the capacity to specifically target high-population density areas with great precision.
Also, how could we survive post-Toba without cooperation? Hard to see how humanity survived the Toba eruption if we were locked in “dog-eat-dog” completion mode. Even in harsh frontier environments, people had to cooperate to survive. What if Polynesians of 1000 AD squabbled and dramaed their way while on their outrigger canoes? I doubt they’d gotten as far as Samoa – let alone Hawaii and Easter Island.
Really the only way Humans will survive into the next few centuries or millennia, is if we manage to escape this rock, and expand into the stars...
If we can transport ourselves to the stars, then we can transport our dangerous toys there too. Even simpler – scarily so – some cult, terrorist group, or group of highly disgruntled individuals in the 24th century may divert a dinosaur-killer right into the earth for their own purposes (recall the Tokyo subway gassing in 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo cult).
Finally, I’ll close this with one of the [b]Classic[b] presidential campaign ads (from the Lyndon Johnson campaign, 1964)
63h_v6uf0Ao
There is always a balance of female hypergamy that comes into play, or do you forget man and woman is a partnership, not just in immediate life, but also civilisation. Majority will always rule. The balance in the west is by far swung in favour of a degenerate female hypergamy, an initial indication of a civilisation in decay, created by our own civilisational system. I'm not sure if this decay will catch up to the rising Eastern countries, we'll find out soon enough.
I’m not talking about sex appeal, “game”, and all this picking up women stuff. I’m talking about attitudes and mentalities associated with Alpha-ness (male or female). The relevant issue is human nature itself, particularly how out of date human impulses are in this high-tech (and increasingly so) mode of existence. Mate selection is not directly relevant. Put more simply, it’s the end result that counts in this case, not the process and criteria. Still more simply, if our mate selection processes (for both males and females) is out of synch with our physical environment, then the criteria is superfluous at best, and frankly dangerous at worse.
Just ask yourself why is the East, China, slowly but surely over taking the West?
Probably because China and India finally figured out the right policies that promote economic behaviors that increase their own wealth.
How many single males are in China and India...? How fierce is that 'Dark Triad' competition? In the west, many men are just dropping out of the competition, China and India has reserves still.
Again, mate selection is irrelevant to the ultimate issue, even if it might be an indirect cause of it. The latter is just evo-psych though, which I find unreliable because people can use evo-psych to explain any kind of behavior. Not to mention that it ignores how environment can shape an individual’s behavior.
Sorry Phil, the lower betas and feminist men will always be at the bottom of the rung, propping the system up, rather then leading it.
At best, it’s like being the captain of the Titanic – with the iceberg being technology too powerful for our own good (i.e. our nature is unable to handle it wisely). This time the crew and passengers are the entire human species.
At least our geeks may provide some innovation, that may create the so called service and technological economy. Though it seems pretty useless when China steals that intellectual property, via hacking and bribing.
Technology developed is technology developed – no matter who does it or who gets ahold of it via illegitimate means. I’m sure you’ve heard about nanotechnology et al (to oversimplify it, building robotic microbes). Or the dangers of genetic engineering. If we can do it to other animals, we can in principle do it to humans. If this technology develops, then a person will upgrade himself (or his/her descendants) for his or her own benefit – not humanity’s. It’ll start a genetic arms race. Although just barely possible, we could be facing a situation not unlike graphic novel superhero vs. supervillian stories – which would make humanity even worse off than it is now. Unlike in those novels, the good guys’ aren’t guaranteed to win. Maybe you have more faith in human nature’s goodness than I do. Me? I think genetic enhancement will lead to just this scenario.
Our Alpha female PM that is leading Australia at the moment is doing a very poor job of imitation if you ask me, the polls do not lie, unlike the crafted propaganda of the political masters we all serve. Women just can't pull off the charismatic 'Dark triad', like a man can. Women look like liars when they attempt it, Australia's PM's nick name is "Juliar". Her predecessor on the other hand is loved by the people, using the exact same policies, he is just more efficient, charismatic and intellectually superior at selling and implementing such policy. K Rudd has the gift of the gab, so to speak.
It doesn’t matter if the PM is Julian or Jerry. The point is the behavior itself, not the gender-labels we attach to the behavior. The issue is the behavior itself and the destructive consequences of it (and dare I call it ‘self-omnicidal’?)
If the world was not ready for nuclear weapons we would of perished a long time ago. Neutrino bombs were banned from mass production and use, for a reason. You never know, a disaster could be man made, or nature, from far left or right field...Either way Humans have survived a bottle neck before, a disaster that actually mimicked a nuclear winter, but occurred from nature. Most of our ancestors could be gone in 50 to 200 years, if there's a large enough volcanic eruption or asteroid collision.
We wouldn’t have been ready for it IF we kept our 17th century social and cultural attitudes through well into the nuclear era. Beyond this, the nanotech or biotech is also a potential problem. It takes much less materain investment and $ to manufacture a super-germ/virus – probably for no more than the price of a typical Anglo-world suburban home. That means one small cult-like group or disgruntled individual could, within this century, create lots of havoc. At least making nukes requires billions of $ worth of high-precision machine tools and industrial plant. They also have a lot of institutional and technical safeguards to prevent an accidental launch and certainly to prevent multiple nuke launches at the same time. The potential kill-per-dollar/euro/pound/yen IS getting smaller with time.
Thankfully though our 'Dark triad' men will pull us through such an event.
That’s just a hope, not a valid prediction. The Toba event was not a precision event – it was just raw power destroying the immediate region around the volcano while belching ash, sulfur dioxide, etc. across the rest of the world. Humans DO have the capacity to specifically target high-population density areas with great precision.
Also, how could we survive post-Toba without cooperation? Hard to see how humanity survived the Toba eruption if we were locked in “dog-eat-dog” completion mode. Even in harsh frontier environments, people had to cooperate to survive. What if Polynesians of 1000 AD squabbled and dramaed their way while on their outrigger canoes? I doubt they’d gotten as far as Samoa – let alone Hawaii and Easter Island.
Really the only way Humans will survive into the next few centuries or millennia, is if we manage to escape this rock, and expand into the stars...
If we can transport ourselves to the stars, then we can transport our dangerous toys there too. Even simpler – scarily so – some cult, terrorist group, or group of highly disgruntled individuals in the 24th century may divert a dinosaur-killer right into the earth for their own purposes (recall the Tokyo subway gassing in 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo cult).
Finally, I’ll close this with one of the [b]Classic[b] presidential campaign ads (from the Lyndon Johnson campaign, 1964)
63h_v6uf0Ao