Members James Bowery

Jan 28 2012: That's not right. That's not even wrong!

Here's something that at least might be wrong:

http://diogenesinstitute.org

Jan 13 2012: If you're serious about quality human ecologies then the primary value should be on assortative migration.

Dec 25 2011: What he didn't say about those "2 out of 3" boomers was that their choise wasn't between present hedonism and future security, but between having children and having their retirement stolen by Goldstein's relatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Aug 22 2011: Civilization is built on the pretense that husbands are alpha males so that they don't revolt against those in positions of authority. The 60s exploded that pretense leaving the glass ceiling protecting those positions of authority as the real alpha males surrounding themselves by de facto harems. It has take decades, but the consequences are now coming home to roost in the form of high fertility rates among patriarchal immigrant cultures. Islam is the the likely beneficiary since it dispenses with the hypocrisy surrounding de facto harems and formally sanctions harem sizes limited to a maximum of 4 females.



No one wants to even consider what the counterpart to female liberation might be. But since its my job to point out that which no one wants to consider, consider this: A female's godhood is exercised when she chooses which genes will pass through her to the next generation. A male's godhood is exercised when he chooses which other male he will meet in a natural duel to prevent his genes from passing into the next generation -- or die trying.

If males are liberated, the glass ceiling would be shattered along with all positions of authority.

Jun 29 2011: Hey Mr. Horowitz, how about letting individuals choose their own "moral operating system"? I know, I know, "we" can reduce that question to yet another "moral question" right? Wrong. Individual consent is not just another "moral question". It is tempting to sweep this META-moral question under the rug in order to avoid its implications, but let's relax for a moment and consider those implications before sweeping it under the rug so prejudicially, ok? Clearly, an individual's choice of "moral operating system" will have effects on the human ecology within which he resides. The problem here is that not only do we not always have a good way of establishing causality to a "moral certainty", we don't even always have a good way of establishing the value of the hypothesized effects! The former is addressed by science via controlled experiments to establish causality. The latter is addressed by letting the individual mutually consent with others to a set of valuations. Both of these conditions can be met by allowing people to assortatively migrate to establish human ecologies testing strongly held hypotheses in human ecology. These hypotheses might be thought of as "moral operating systems".

Yes, I know, such assortative migration presents immense practical problems. However the burden is on you to show that these problems are worse than the present imposition "moral operating systems" aka "laws" on populations of hundreds of millions (as with US Federal law) if not billions (as in India and China).

A global polity based on science where individuals may choose to migrate to a territory supporting their desired "moral operating system" is worth fighting for. Its worth fighting wars for to depose the existing political paradigms.