Regardless, he'll still be around for quite a while yet. In an interview with Wired, he said he just wants to live until the year of Linux On The Desktop.
I don't think it presumes a lack of free will. I think it presumes that a very small percentage of young people, in certain situations and with certain preconditioning, will tend toward activities that result in pregnancy. People can control themselves. Those young women that became pregnant, they controlled themselves in such a way that they became pregnant. Was that decision made easier by the stimulus they experienced? Well, it looks like in about 2-4% of them, the answer is yes.
One thing you need to remember is that you, and I, and everyone alive on this planet for that matter, comes from ancestors who all did one thing right, without fail, 100% of the time, each and every generation, going all the way back to the very first humans ever on this planet. That singular thing that every single one of your ancestors have in common? They procreated successfully and created offspring that procreated successfully.
Think about that for a moment and let's compare. What if every ancestor of a certain person from the beginning of human history was a murderer. How surprised would you be when that person committed a murder? Murder is, admittedly, a more complex behavior than sex so it is easy to argue that sex would be even more likely.
Also, it's not like there aren't tons of papers, experiments, and conjecture on the psycho-sexual motivations of humans. I have read that just about every human behavior has been related to or attributed to sexual drives by psychologist, psychiatrists, philosophers, and pundits. Everything from the drive to work and earn money and upwardly mobile social movement to speech patterns, vocabulary choice, and clothing. So it's not about whether or not people have free will, its about how people choose to use that free will, and how the world occurs to them when they make choices. Its about how people choose to have sex, when they will choose to have sex, and even why they choose to have sex.
I also seemed to notice a slippery slope in your writing that was coupled with a pejorative view of sex. If that is the case I fear we may have difficulty discussing this subject without knowing each other better. When discussing topics like sex there can be heavy filters and unspoken assumptions that lead to misunderstandings between people that are not aware of each others presuppositions. My goal in replying is not to say you are wrong, not is it to argue, but merely to say that any discussion of free will and sex needs to include the possibility that people will choose freely to have sex, and that those free choices are influenced by antecedents, stimuli, and experiences. It is true that acknowledging that people can control themselves is a good first step toward controlling that behavior. It is also just as important to realize what you are dealing with when considering human sexual activity. To deny that there are incredibly powerful underlying components to the human makeup that can be manipulated to increase the likelihood of procreation is shortsighted and leads to useless therapies like teaching abstinence, non-communication on sexual matters between children and parents, and ultimately sending children out into the world drastically under prepared and unsupported.
As humans we are, at our basest nature, violent sexual beings that don't always make choices that fit with the predominant behavior patterns we display to the world on a daily basis. Forgetting this leads to all sorts of problems. Like assuming that people will, with he proper training and teaching, decide to not rape an unconscious woman when she presents herself as such. I would love to live in a world where everyone could be taught proper self control and willpower, and would use those skills without fail. However, this is not the world we live in, and this is not who humans are. Drop a fully sedated and unconscious supermodel in front of 10000 young intoxicated men and regardless of how well you train them, some of them will rape her. Its not surprising, really. Remember those ancestors that I mentioned earlier, the ones that have been batting 1000 on the procreation front? Many of them were rapists, too.
One of the tricks in production of litigation documents is to produce them in the least convenient form that conforms to the rules. So if the opposing side requests a bunch of e-mails and Word documents, and they don't have the foresight to request them in native format with metadata intact (or the rules don't require you to send them that way), you send them a stack of CDs full of TIFFs. There are even programs that will load up all the documents for review by the baby attorneys* and then convert them all to TIFFs for production. And when the other side sends you a bunch of TIFFs on CDs, it will load those all up, OCR them, and tag them with keywords. This is in part why production is so ridiculously expensive. (The other reason is that the attorneys will spend half a million dollars filing motions and counter-motions fighting over the search terms to use on document and e-mail searches.) (This is why attorneys always win lawsuits, as long as the client is solvent. Occasionally, one of the clients wins too.)
*If you retain a big law firm, they will still bill you $300/hr. for the baby attorney to sit in front of his computer all day, flipping through documents looking for stuff that should be tagged as "hot" or "damaging" or whatever before they go out. Then when the opposing side sends their production, baby attorney sits and reviews all of those too. The whole time, baby attorney is thinking, "I got seven years of post-secondary education for THIS?" But he'll do it, because the partner told him to, and they're paying him a salary of $160,000 plus bonuses that depend on billable hours, and as mind-numbingly boring as it is, it is the easiest way on earth to rack up billable hours, and he still has $200,000 in student loans to pay off.
Sounds plausible doesn't it? Show the young lady exactly what it is like to have a child, but without them having one. That should scare them into not wanting children, right?
However, when I read about this I thought "Aren't they risking priming and further activating all of the reproductive programming that women (and men) are subject to at that age?" I mean really, haven't we noticed yet that reproduction is a dirty trick that our biology plays on us? The drive to procreate is definitely not rational, in light of population pressure, economic well being, and lost opportunities swallowed up in the time it takes to raise young. But in spite of this it persists at a rate that is greater than necessary to sustain the species. What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.
Personally, I am surprised it isn't more effective at driving up pregnancy rates than it is.
So what you are saying is that I was correct initially when I stated I always thought it was going to be right-wing reactionaries, but somehow when I misinterpreted his statement and expanded my viewpoint to include both right and left wing reactionaries and generally anyone who places ideology above the sanctity of human life, all of a sudden I don't get it...
See you said: "It's going to be the right-wingers who kill you for threatening the environment."
I said: "Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars."
See, pretty similar. Also notice that I don't discount that idea, only add to it the possibility of another source of social breakdown. Yet somehow you declare I don't get it. Whatevs, man.
Personally, with all the "denier" talk, its the politically active environmentalists with language constriction as part of their policies that I really worry about. They sound like religious people, and we all know how dangerous and destabilizing they are.
Populace means the people living in an area. You added the connotation of "the rich" and erroneously so. Unless you define "wealth enough to own a firearm" as "the rich."
I saw his statement as the government/army, not the electorate. Your interpretation makes more sense as I read it, though it is hard to push that through the stereotype filter of typical parlance on this site. I mean really, did he just say "when all the hillbillies in flyover states start caring about the environment..."? Seems implausible to me.
As for an armed populace, I would prefer that all men are armed. The tyranny of government is the enemy. That criminals fear those they would prey on is also desirable. That an armed society is a polite society is a pleasant side effect.
Not to be a smart ass, but a "population reduction war" is, by virtue of the words placed in that order, a war fought to reduce population. It is, I posit, a logical conjecture about a hypothetical future war. It's not too difficult to foresee something like this. Combine the prime problem of exponentially growing population pressure with the exacerbating factors of dwindling resources, kin selection, religious friction, ideological conflicts between neighbors, and energy-dense technology proliferation and you have the perfect ingredients for a return to our species roots as genocidal monsters.
A war fought for territory, or for honor, religion, or for ideology would be completely different than a "population reduction war." A "population reduction war" would be a war fought specifically to reduce the population on the Earth. Whether this ultimate goal is know or hidden from the participants is irrelevant. In a population reduction war killing the enemy's armed forces is not done to force compliance, depose the government leaders, or to gain territory. Killing the enemy would not be a means to an end in a war like this. Killing the enemy is the end. And, as such, the means would be different than in other wars. Combatants would not be the main targets, they would be tactical obstacles between you and the strategic goals of large populations of civilians.
Well then that's all we need! We have provided our decedents with more knowledge in this generation than all of our cumulative generations previous to this one. Conserving any resources is irrelevant!
Thanks for proving my point, again lol!
Seriously though, Leary and Wilson call inherited knowledge you are referring to the "time-binding semantic circuit" of human consciousness. It is an inalienable trait of being a human. Making a societal decision for conservation of resources for future generations is totally different than the automatic accumulation of human knowledge as a by product of language using monkeys playing with tools. It is even father afield from the results of reproductive pressures expressed in future generations that you refer to.
There really is no way to compare them. Its like comparing geology and satellites. Their Venn diagrams aren't even on the same plane.
Goes well with the old adage, "necessity is the mother of invention." Force our future generations into devising increasingly ingenious ways of staying ahead of the extinction curve. No one handed our distant Paleolithic ancestors a leg up, same goes for every generation since. This attitude served us well up to this point, in that we aren't dead yet..
Also goes along well with the "intelligence implies belligerence" adage, though as a cause of the intelligence. A harsher environment will lead to greater intelligence, which will, in turn, reinforce the behavior of molding our environment to our wishes. (Intentional digression) at a certain point I think that deliberate adaptation of our environment will reach a place of diminishing returns. Somewhere along that asymptotic curve it will become more cost and energy effective to deliberately modify the human element of the survival equation.
Not supporting his position per se. Just exploring the taste of that mind filter out loud here. What would I use as rationalization and ancillary support if I were to adopt that thought as valid. As always, even the most ludicrous shit can be justified through human "reasoning" and "logic."
Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?
The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.
We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.
They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.
1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?
No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?
And there is a big difference in falsifiability
You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."
If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world
I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.
Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:
Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?
Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.
My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.
The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.
And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support
My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.
The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.
The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it. - Brian Kernighan