Hi Hawk,
I'm surprised I haven't posted here regarding World War III. I suppose fatalism and knowing how obtuse, obdurate, inflexible and purely bloody minded many or even most people are, I've pretty much arrived at the idea that the world's population is about to be reduced by 90% or 95% as that's the way evolutionary pressures work.
However, in clicking to here via my subjectmarks just now, being years behind in my visits due to limited time I allocate to Silicon Investor, I saw a post by TimF. So I thought, "Hang on, I thought this was a Hawkmoon place". Sure enough, handed over to TimF.
I would still like to have eudaimonia as the normal experience of people around the world, rather than Dr Strangelovian obliteration, starvation and a million microwars to finish off and start again from a low carbon-footprint base of several million survivors in hunter-gatherer mode, with some agriculture once stabliized in a year or two. I learned the word eudaimonia about 20 years ago when discussing possible DNA engineering with an intelligence researcher, namely Tim Bates. Eudaimonia = Greek word = flourishing success, well-being. I suppose like genki in Japanese. Greeks were once world leaders before Rome took over. Tim and I were considering gene selection and engineering to improve brain power. The current method of women selecting better men is pathetic. It works fairly well - see The Flynn Effect though he didn't think that it was simple selection pressure but that's my theory.
Another way of creating and selecting for human intelligence is to do genocide as has been done for tens of thousands of years since brains started over-powering brute chimpoid force in conquering conflicts. On average, I guess a vast nuclear war would put a lot of pressure on people and the intelligent would survive better, statistically, and vast redundant hordes who are pushing for World War III would be eliminated. So looking from 100 years from now, it might be no bad thing - like Negro slaves being sold by their relatives in Africa to be taken to north America turned out to be great for their descendants, very few of whom are choosing to migrate back to Africa.
A huge nuclear war might also be good for the now fashionable AI named It by me 20 years ago - come to think of it, I shall hereby change the name to They or maybe Zhey in genuflection to the wokery now current in the cauldron of crazed gender looniness, because machinery doesn't have gender - not yet anyway though that might not last very long as mixing and matching software/firmware might be the way to go, just as genetic mixing and matching has proven to be a very good method of selecting for the best combination of genetic foundations in the biological realm that was designed to develop intelligence and everything else such as flight, echo location, electric field detection of nerves, fast swimming, octopus trickery and a billion things.
Anyway, cutting to the chase, I'm here in hopes of getting USA to stop the MADness and the attack on Russia in general and Putin in particular.
The whole process seems to be led by people lacking Y chromosomes and therefore brain function. Yes, I mean women, the gentle gender. I mean actual women as the traditional word is used. "What is a woman? " is now a puzzle for people who are about to become a supreme court judge, men who want to be women, young people who are bewildered and deluded. I don't mean those gender fluid "women". Word definitions get mutilated in common use over time. So gay, queer, empathy, voila, toe the line, are morphed into other meanings, losing their original definitions. Woman is just a word and can also change if people do it. But meanwhile, using the Y deficiency definition, women do seem to be cheerleaders for the war, inciting to carnage and loving it.
Mammalian females in general and primates in particular do the same = stand by while the males fight it out for the possession of females and territory and found-wealth resources. They LIKE to see the fighting and they love to mate with the winners - as legions of incels can now attest since human mating went from pair-bonded duos against the elements with family attachments and villages and countries as support, to monster welfare-funded hypergamy. Women on average, are using the state for resources, not a pair-bonded man.
Even where the woman is married to a man and there's a traditional pair-bonded partnership, the woman's resources mostly come from the state = roads, hospitals, water supplies, electricity, legal systems, universities and the vast panoply of cornucopia created by pair-bonded men over the last 2 centuries.
Divorces are 80% by women and they have the cushy community on which to rest after they've ditched the bloke. So even those pair-bonded women don't go the reproductive distance in the majority of cases.
Actually, I've often lost posts so I'll secure this and continue....
Mqurice |
