Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (16899)	4/13/2007 3:54:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217847

TJ, in free societies, if somebody does something doesn't mean it has been "elevated in status by society": <when elevated in status by society to the point of vending by machines, not good sign > In "free" places like China, anything that happens is ipso facto approved by the state, because everything is banned unless specifically approved. That's the same in NZ now. It's the same in Japan to a large extent too. But in each, presidents don't do chickens. So there is some leeway for individuals to sniff anything they like. Sniffing is not generally considered to be an issue in human society provided one doesn't infringe on personal space. Come to think of it, it's one of the things that is NOT banned. Something will have to be done. Maybe a tax on smelling could be arranged, but it's not immediately apparent how that would be done. As you say, smells and brains are encoded along with other things. So, if people enjoy smelling something, there is probably a very good evolutionary reason for it. As Brumar says, getting so wound up about it does seem a bit odd. At least in Japan they sell them. Here people steal them off clotheslines [in washed condition so I don't know the purpose]. Mqurice

To: TobagoJack who wrote (16899)	4/13/2007 4:27:09 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217847

TJ, it's always amusing when highly-paid experts "discover" things which are obvious from simple observation. Eugenics is out of fashion, but women have continued the process enthusiastically: <Dr. Bailey believes that the systems for sexual orientation and arousal make men go out and find people to have sex with, whereas women are more focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them. > Blokes are very keen, and "blokes" includes males throughout nature. Females select among what's on offer. Since women select intelligence as a primary requirement in males on offer, it is not surprising that the Flynn Effect has been working successfully since humans and chimps were siblings. The process is now going faster than ever and it's being done in a population of 6 billion instead of a few million. The world is going to change very dramatically over this century, even in human genetics through normal processes, let alone in cyberspace and the technological realm, including genetic engineering and selection. In China, where the love of children has resulted in the death of legions of female foetuses and infants, there is a surplus of males of about 20% [maybe it's more in the younger age groups]. That means females are going to be able to be much more choosy than females elsewhere. It's not as though China is short of people, so the species isn't endangered. But a LOT of blokes are and so is their DNA. They are going to be Darwined right out of the gene pool. We can expect the Flynn Effect to be turbo-charged in China as women choose the more intelligent males [who of course have to have a full complement of other desirable traits]. Even without such female infanticide, females would rather die without children than accept the worst of the bunch. Males too are self-selecting not to have children, so human evolution is getting a very big push. Mqurice