Let's Talk About Population Control

[Micro2Macro]

http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-o...s-depopulation

I think this article sums it up. Its very long I shall warn you, so some cliffs for those just peering in:

"
Here is a short list of progressive causes that have percolated from intellectuals and later sponsored or hijacked by billionaire activists and major government institutions of the West.
1. Abortion is a bodily “choice,” not human murder. Result: it decreases population.
2. Birth control is a “choice” that allows women to better practice consumer lifestyles. Result: it decreases population.
3. Female empowerment in the form of feminism and egalitarianism pushes women into corporate work with the goal of delaying motherhood (or eliminating it outright). Result: it decreases reproduction and family formation.
4. Promotion of sterile human relationships in the form of homosexuality and transsexuality can’t possibly result in the creation of life. Result: it decreases population, reproduction, and traditional family formation.
5. Promotion of atheism, nihilism, individualism, and consumerism as suitable alternatives to traditional living via nuclear family units. Result: it decreases reproduction and traditional family formation.
6. The needs of the “environment” must be served before that of living humans. Result: it makes human guilty of family formation.
7. Massive waves of foreign immigrants are encouraged entry into Western nations to break bonds between tribe and neighbor that decrease notions of nationalism and patriotism while transferring fertility and economic resources from native people to foreigers. Result: it decreases relative population of native citizens.
All of the above decreases the reproductive rate, either directly through the killing of life, or indirectly by promoting guilt and alternative lifestyles that are incompatible with the creation of life. At the same time, immigrant populations are allowed to grow at a faster rate that the natives’ ability to reproduce.
Those who rule over us don’t need more Americans or European-derived people to cement their power and wealth within nations they control through government institutions and transnational organizations and corporations. How would it benefit them if a baby boom takes place among those from American conservative states that believe in the first and second amendments? If you were king of the land, and you regularly met with those who helped you rule, would you really want the type of people who are most likely to overthrow you to reproduce up to their biological maximum, or would you want to hurt their reproductive potential while pushing every degenerate cause under the sun in an effort to limit their numbers?
"

Maybe it needs no discussion and it just is what it is. But does anyone think rooshv's article here is far fetched? Is he missing something that leads to these conclusions being possibly incorrect?

[wufwugy]

depopulation is more of an effect (as opposed to an agenda) of other progressive ideals as well as technological and capitalistic realities.

[wufwugy]

i think the author makes the oft-made "history is made by big men" fallacy. history is made by movements of deeper and more complex causes; big men are an effect.

[wufwugy]

i think what's going on is that people are naturally egalitarian (it's how foragers work, which is what we evolved for). a little amount of technology and unique geography and the classic idea of liberty turned this on its head by way of allowing people to sprawl instead of banding together as we had always done before. from this emerged the cult of the nuclear family as an island and self-reliance and honor culture. but as people pack together more tightly and experience a life less and less like primitive life, the egalitarianism returns but what also comes with it is a deep naivete about the realities of nature. so we end up with chunks of incredibly dense and "diverse" populations whose natural egalitarianism engages without an eye towards natural necessities. this gives rise to things like women no longer needing to bear children and make the home in order for the group to survive, and for men no longer needing to provide security in order for the group to survive.

that's my theory, at least.

i fear that the natual progression of human civilization, if dependent upon the human make-up, is one of totalitarianism and uniformity. it's in our genes. but i also think that technology subverts this to an even greater degree.

[wufwugy]

in a way the author's thesis is contrary to a thesis that i think is more well established, that the left's view of the world is that humans are naturally decent and it's the institutions that cause our problems; whereas the right's view is that humans are naturally indecent and it's institutions that make us better.

i disagree with both. what i think is really going on is that humans are neither decent nor indecent, but that we are what we are and institutions make us either better or worse, depending on the quality of the institutions. but that's beside the point, the left's narrative really does seem to be that people are inherently good, which i find a contradictory idea to the claim that the left has an agenda of depopulation.

[wufwugy]

post #5

[JKDS]

Tldr

But I read m2ms post, and it seems like a "rich white men rule the world" type post. You might want to add "going to war constantly" and encouraging terrorism because it lowers pop. Also, increasingly high rent costs that make it harder to afford children, and useless degrees that make for less attractive mates.

Anyway, if i got the general idea right, the biggest flaw I see with the argument is that it isn't working. Women in the workplace didn't decrease population. Gays do have biological children (especially lesbians). Trans have children. Birth control and abortion, while they do stop life, also encourage sex. The lives they prevent may not necessarily have occurred to begin with. Still, they often delay kids, not stop them entirely. The women I know all want kids (except for some high strung lawyer women), and many have had multiple kids even though they are not church goers. And perhaps most compelling, the growth in the US has continued to increase and doesn't seem like it's stopping.

So I can see this being some kind of population control plan, but if so, it's a bad one. I can't help but feel that of some scary people in a dark room wanted to do this, they would find a far more effective method than pinning their hopes on a cultural shift.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So I can see this being some kind of population control plan, but if so, it's a bad one. I can't help but feel that of some scary people in a dark room wanted to do this, they would find a far more effective method than pinning their hopes on a cultural shift.

*nods*

[JKDS]

Let me rephrase. How do any of these things stop white children but encourage minority children? Both get access to birth control, and both are encouraged to work. We encourage illegals to go to school, where we teach values like the 1st and 2nd amendment. They don't get a separate education that minimizes that value. They aren't shielded from Internet sources.

But how would you encourage pop control? If I had power, I'd teach it in school. Id film movies about how having children ruined someone's life, and how much better they are without them. I'd have found some way to dismantle the NRA because guns help uprisings, and I'd be at least successful enough that 1 in 3 households wouldn't be the gun ownership statistic. I would never show a riot on the news, ever. I would make ppl scared to riot. I would increase the cost of children's goods. I'd try and make people believe in an impossible standard, so that no one thinks they've found love and no one dares have sex. I'd make a virus that would discretely kill off many many people, or make them unable to reproduce. (Or perhaps HIV is part of their plan?)

Many of these are silly, and it is a neat talking point. But realistically, I don't see such a thing happening. Chance or plan, it's chance like 95% of the time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd teach it in school. Id film movies about how having children ruined someone's life, and how much better they are without them. I'd have found some way to dismantle the NRA because guns help uprisings, and I'd be at least successful enough that 1 in 3 households wouldn't be the gun ownership statistic. I would never show a riot on the news, ever. I would make ppl scared to riot. I would increase the cost of children's goods. I'd try and make people believe in an impossible standard, so that no one thinks they've found love and no one dares have sex. I'd make a virus that would discretely kill off many many people, or make them unable to reproduce. (Or perhaps HIV is part of their plan?)

[wufwugy]

I'd run the schools

.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm sorry, what was your point, again?

[Renton]

It's just people and choices. Fertility rate goes down as people get richer and it makes less and less economic sense to have children. In developing countries people have ten children just because that's the highest EV decision for them. Not a lot of 401k's in the third world so people have children as kind of a pension program. In the U.S. people peak out in earning potential in their 40s and 50s and are more likely to be investing in their children's college than the other way around (being supported by one's kids).

There's also the r/K selection theory which has some things to say about this, but that's probably a topic for another thread. Cliffs: certain types of animals (and certain people) breed for quantity over quality (r selection), as a form of brute force method of ensuring their genes are passed along, while taking many risks that result in a low survival rate. Conversely others invest in fewer, quality children while being more risk averse. Rabbits are an example of a generally r-selection species, while lions are more K-selected, but r and K behavior can coexist in the same species. There's a theory that humans, while generally K selected, have developed some r-selected niches since the industrial revolution. It gets political from there, so I'll leave that for another topic (spoiler: leftists tend to be r).

[spoonitnow]

It's just people and choices. Fertility rate goes down as people get richer and it makes less and less economic sense to have children. In developing countries people have ten children just because that's the highest EV decision for them. Not a lot of 401k's in the third world so people have children as kind of a pension program. In the U.S. people peak out in earning potential in their 40s and 50s and are more likely to be investing in their children's college than the other way around (being supported by one's kids).

There's also the r/K selection theory which has some things to say about this, but that's probably a topic for another thread. Cliffs: certain types of animals (and certain people) breed for quantity over quality (r selection), as a form of brute force method of ensuring their genes are passed along, while taking many risks that result in a low survival rate. Conversely others invest in fewer, quality children while being more risk averse. Rabbits are an example of a generally r-selection species, while lions are more K-selected, but r and K behavior can coexist in the same species. There's a theory that humans, while generally K selected, have developed some r-selected niches since the industrial revolution. It gets political from there, so I'll leave that for another topic (spoiler: leftists tend to be r).

I'll just chime in real quick on this particular point because what you just said is so important: On the alpha/beta spectrum, alpha behaviors at an extreme tend to lead to r-selected situations and beta behaviors at an extreme tend to lead to K-selected situations (the extreme itself being raising someone else's primarily r-selected kid as if it was your own in a K-selected fashion).

[oskar]

Maybe it needs no discussion and it just is what it is. But does anyone think rooshv's article here is far fetched? Is he missing something that leads to these conclusions being possibly incorrect?

The more I hear about the club of magic white men that rule over all of our lives like some tangible deity, the more I like them. Spritz people with infertilizer from planes: brilliant. Make planned parenthood a lifestyle: awesome. Make contraception and abortion easily available in developing countries: well, this only solves ALL of our problems.
How you can come to the conclusion that we should antagonize them, idk. I don't want them to stop. I want to help out. Where do I apply for a job at the lizzard illuminati? I'm their #1 fan.

We're hurling towards 9 billion while we can't sustain 7. Every child exponentially exacerbates the situation.

I like how he just evaluates everything without critically anylyzing anything.

For example this quote:

I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

is somehow not awesome?


If his goal was to write an expressionist piece that mirrors the indifferent stupidity of the nature of things in a pants on head song and dance then fucking congrats to him.

[oskar]

Also A++ posts all around. Awesome thread.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-o...s-depopulation

I think this article sums it up. Its very long I shall warn you, so some cliffs for those just peering in:

"
Here is a short list of progressive causes that have percolated from intellectuals and later sponsored or hijacked by billionaire activists and major government institutions of the West.
1. Abortion is a bodily “choice,” not human murder. Result: it decreases population.
2. Birth control is a “choice” that allows women to better practice consumer lifestyles. Result: it decreases population.
3. Female empowerment in the form of feminism and egalitarianism pushes women into corporate work with the goal of delaying motherhood (or eliminating it outright). Result: it decreases reproduction and family formation.
4. Promotion of sterile human relationships in the form of homosexuality and transsexuality can’t possibly result in the creation of life. Result: it decreases population, reproduction, and traditional family formation.
5. Promotion of atheism, nihilism, individualism, and consumerism as suitable alternatives to traditional living via nuclear family units. Result: it decreases reproduction and traditional family formation.
6. The needs of the “environment” must be served before that of living humans. Result: it makes human guilty of family formation.
7. Massive waves of foreign immigrants are encouraged entry into Western nations to break bonds between tribe and neighbor that decrease notions of nationalism and patriotism while transferring fertility and economic resources from native people to foreigers. Result: it decreases relative population of native citizens.
All of the above decreases the reproductive rate, either directly through the killing of life, or indirectly by promoting guilt and alternative lifestyles that are incompatible with the creation of life. At the same time, immigrant populations are allowed to grow at a faster rate that the natives’ ability to reproduce.
Those who rule over us don’t need more Americans or European-derived people to cement their power and wealth within nations they control through government institutions and transnational organizations and corporations. How would it benefit them if a baby boom takes place among those from American conservative states that believe in the first and second amendments? If you were king of the land, and you regularly met with those who helped you rule, would you really want the type of people who are most likely to overthrow you to reproduce up to their biological maximum, or would you want to hurt their reproductive potential while pushing every degenerate cause under the sun in an effort to limit their numbers?
"

Maybe it needs no discussion and it just is what it is. But does anyone think rooshv's article here is far fetched? Is he missing something that leads to these conclusions being possibly incorrect?

I skimmed your summary but yes. That any of these things are happening doesn't mean this is why they're happening.

It also doesn't mean that seemingly the opposite of any of these isn't also happening: i.e. a lot of money going to support religious conservatives.

edit: And always be careful, you can put on your rose tinted glasses and swear the entire world was red.

[JKDS]

One thing neat about an argument like this is how contrary evidence is dealt with. It's like one of those "can't be falsified" type deals. If I were to show an example of say pro-lifers rallying in dc, the answer is that the rich white men didn't infect their minds yet, or their reach didn't extend to everyone. Because it's a shadowy conspiracy, we can cherry pick each individual thing that helps show a conspiracy, but also freely ignore those that dont.

That's cool too

[spoonitnow]

One thing neat about an argument like this is how contrary evidence is dealt with. It's like one of those "can't be falsified" type deals. If I were to show an example of say pro-lifers rallying in dc, the answer is that the rich white men didn't infect their minds yet, or their reach didn't extend to everyone. Because it's a shadowy conspiracy, we can cherry pick each individual thing that helps show a conspiracy, but also freely ignore those that dont.

That's cool too

No, it's controlled opposition.

[a500lbgorilla]

So M2M, what are your thoughts?

[a500lbgorilla]

M2M, anything new to share?

[Micro2Macro]

M2M, anything new to share?

Yo.

I think a lot of it is just randomness, and what looks like a bunch of things that could collectively be taken as branches of one specific agenda, a lot of them have nothing to do with each other in reality but only appear to based on how the author has categorized his post.

Most of these sort of things are just a result of individuals looking to maximize their utility. In the case of corporations, do what they can to make more money - pushing the female empowerment idea is a sure way for them to achieve this. In the case of politicians, do whatever it takes to get elected - could also follow the same thing that a corporation does even if there is no link. Or they could be bought out and there is a link. I think its unlikely they are altogether planned for some grand conspiracy, but the idea itself is cool and I think its great that we can have a discussion about this stuff.

Author gives people way too much credit for being so clever, which is probably some projection of himself into his writing because to me he appears to be a very deep, analytical thinker. Most of us are just going off whims on what we think is right without really breaking it down to a science and he is probably overlooking this.

[a500lbgorilla]

Most of these sort of things are just a result of individuals looking to maximize their utility.

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I think its unlikely they are altogether planned for some grand conspiracy, but the idea itself is cool and I think its great that we can have a discussion about this stuff.

4 real. I may try to shame people for the things they think, but so long as you're a lively thinker, you should explore every avenue of thought you can find.

[wufwugy]

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I get the joke.

Think of it as assuming up is up and down is down. If we were to assume up is not necessarily up, well, we wouldn't be able to make sense of related things.

[a500lbgorilla]

I get the joke.

Think of it as assuming up is up and down is down. If we were to assume up is not necessarily up, well, we wouldn't be able to make sense of related things.

:^)

If up were down, we'd still manage just the same.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

[wufwugy]

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

It seems you're thinking in terms of an overarching assessment of results. The base assumption is not concerned with what the outcome is; it is just an assumption that people want more good and less bad. This is for each decision; it's not a plan or anything. "Good" is 100% arbitrary.

If people are always deciding for more good, it necessarily means that even the decisions that look objectively poor to others are still good to that person. IIRC it was Gary Becker who first popularized this idea, using the heroin addict example.

[wufwugy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

One of the base assumptions is that utility is always maximized.

If I could have chosen to word some of these economics things differently, I probably would have.

[Savy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's a cheat code. All the troubling aspects of human interaction can be bundled up as "utility maximizing" and brushed aside.

It's ducking the question.

[wufwugy]

It's a premise. ain't nobody investigating the troubling aspects of human interaction without a premise to start from.

[CoccoBill]

From Introduction to Choice Theory by Paul Milgrom and Jonathan Levin, Stanford University:

"Despite the empirical shortcomings of rational choice theory, the flexibility and tractability of rational choice models (and the lack of equally powerful alternatives) lead to them still being widely used."

So, rational choice theory and supposed utility maximization are used in economics because, well, it's shit but it's the best shit we have. A good read.

https://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Ec...e%20Theory.pdf

[MadMojoMonkey]

People make emotional decisions or impulsive decisions all the do da day, too. Not every decision is a rational choice.

There is much psychological evidence which suggests that people are totally full of lies when it comes to explaining their decisions, anyway. There is every reason to believe that our decisions are made many seconds before we become consciously aware of them, and we do a few little things to trick ourselves into thinking the decision is evolving in our minds, when really, we're stalling for time to come up with rational, word-based excuses to perform what we were gonna do anyway.

[Savy]

What does good or bad have to do with anything? It's also not a case of what people report their reasoning to be it's the truth that matters. People are making decisions so something is driving those decisions. People clearly want to make the best decisions, just because those decisions aren't rational to you doesn't mean they aren't in some given context.

Self destructive behaviour still has reasoning attached to it. Give some examples if you want to go into it more. I imagine it usually boils down to either short term gain (which is massively important) or a massive weighting to attached problems which you personally wouldn't assign that much weight to. If you found someone who was agoraphobic and put $100,000 outside their house for them clearly you'd say the best thing to do was to go get that money but if that fear is so crippling then you wouldn't.

edit - With regards to the good or bad thing if you're saying people make decisions for the greater good I don't agree. They make decisions for their individual interests there's just going to be lots of overlap. People are inherently selfish if you can make a decision that benefits you but as a result others are worse off in a vacuum you're making that decision.

[MadMojoMonkey]

First off, I'm not saying for the greater good. I'm only saying for their own best good.
I don't agree that it goes without saying that people always choose their own best good.

What does good or bad have to do with anything? It's also not a case of what people report their reasoning to be it's the truth that matters.

I agree that the truth of the matter is important.
How can you or I know the truth about what's going on in someone else's thoughts?

People are making decisions so something is driving those decisions.

... but what?

People clearly want to make the best decisions

It is not clear to me.

Can you prove this point?
E.g. can you tell me what you count as evidence which leads you to this clarity?

just because those decisions aren't rational to you doesn't mean they aren't in some given context.

I fully accept this.

I still do not agree that every decision made by every person ever was made rationally, by any definition which includes or implies consciousness. I'm not even certain that my own "rational" choices are made in my conscious mind.

How can I know if I'm being rational?

An economist says that I can't help it.
OK.
What do we gain by this watered down notion of rationality?

[wufwugy]

Perhaps when thinking of rationality in economic terms, think of the most raw and basic thing you can. Assume there is an entity and assume it has a criteria for decision making. Voila! You now have something that makes rational decisions. This is because making a decision based on that criteria is rational where the other options (making them against the criteria or randomly) are not rational.

When this is translated into human consumer terms, the best economists have come up with is that people make choices based on wanting more benefit (regardless of what "benefit" even truly means).

[wufwugy]

Assumptions are fucking crazy. No matter how deep you get, the bottom level must necessarily be assumed.

[a500lbgorilla]

Assumptions are fucking crazy. No matter how deep you get, the bottom level must necessarily be assumed.

I actually had this conversation with a co-worked this morning who doesn't believe in the Moon landings. Yeah, epistemologically, nothing is known. It's a question of what does it take for you to believe something?

[MadMojoMonkey]

July 20, 1969

I actually had this conversation with a co-worked this morning who doesn't believe in the Moon landings. Yeah, epistemologically, nothing is known. It's a question of what does it take for you to believe something?

I respect a bit of healthy skepticism, especially when extraordinary claims are involved. Not everyone has a dad who was involved in the aerospace industry like I do. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence which fits snugly with a non-faked moon landing, but I can't really expect my anecdotes to mean anything. I mean... once you've met Gene Kranz and shook his hand, having seen him in the control room footage, heard him speak on the experiences and struggles at the time... I can't imagine he gets called a liar to his face very often is all. Greatest generation embodied, he is.

***
Did you ask your coworker - if the moon landings were faked - who had the technology and interest in debunking them immediately at the time?
Answer: USSR.

The USSR kicked America's tail soundly and repeatedly when it came to the moon and they were far from quiet or subtle about making sure the world knew it. The USA moon landing was almost a decade after the Russians were sending stuff there.

USSR moon firsts:
January 2, 1959 - First lunar spacecraft
September 14, 1959 - First impact into another celestial body (Moon)
October 7, 1959 - First photos of far side of the Moon
February 3, 1966 - First soft landing on another celestial body (Moon) & First photos from another celestial body (Moon)
April 3, 1966 - First artificial satellite to orbit another celestial body: the Moon

USA'a first moon first:
December 21, 1968 First human-crewed spaceflight to, and orbit of, another celestial object: the Moon

The USSR congratulated the USA on the moon landing. The USSR did not call the USA liars and fabricators, despite being in the middle of a cold war at the time.

***
If they have a response to that, it's going to be hilariously entertaining. Probably hinged on a conspiracy theory between two world powers with every indication that they were widely invested in the opposite of conspiring with each other.

[wufwugy]

I'm not going to argue this further. It could be that you're right in ways that economists are wrong, it could be that I am accidentally misrepresenting economics (I have spent quite a bit of time studying this specific idea over the course of the months of this debate in an attempt to do my best to not misrepresent economics), or it could be that I'm right. I'm leaving it there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not going to argue this further. It could be that you're right in ways that economists are wrong, it could be that I am accidentally misrepresenting economics (I have spent quite a bit of time studying this specific idea over the course of the months of this debate in an attempt to do my best to not misrepresent economics), or it could be that I'm right. I'm leaving it there.

I'm not disagreeing with you over anything besides your interpretations of science and physics.

I'm not disagreeing with you over economics or your proposed definitions to explain economics.

I just want to know more. Stipulating that people are rational actors is fine with me. I just want to know what else needs to be stipulated and what predictions can be made by these stipulations. I'm not demanding the rigor of physics, but I contest that anything you've said about economics is on par with the predictive power of the hard sciences.


Now... there's a lot more to economics than I understand. I accept that. Maybe it's a lot closer to a science than I understand. That's cool. I'm just curious about how close.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm leaving it there.

So this conversation went something like this:

wuf: Economics says people are rational actors
MMM: What's that mean?
wuf: ...
MMM: OK, so what does it entail? What more is it linked to?
wuf: I'm leaving it there.

Do you consider this an internet argument you've won?
No judgement, just curious. I don't consider this kind of exchange an argument and the idea of "winning" an argument is foreign to me. If we're trying to learn from each other, then don't we both win when either of us learns? IDK.

People are confusing.

[wufwugy]

I tend to not think in terms of winning or losing arguments, unless I lose, in which case I'll declare I was wrong and will adopt the winning position. I think of the benefits of debate in three ways: (1) the audience tends to benefit the most since they're usually the most open to the arguments of each side. When one is engaged in debate, being persuaded is ridiculously hard. (2) Storing ideas away for later that can provide new perspective with new experiences. (3) The challenge of having to construct and defend your argument.


As for this topic, I don't have much more to say because I have said it as well as I can. I think I made a strong enough case for why the discussed assumptions make sense.

[wufwugy]

As far as what the assumptions entail, all I can think of is that they allow people to engage the scientific process without providing what would be interpreted as nonsensical results. One can't even do the scientific method unless one assumes things like consistency of phenomena. There are a handful of base assumptions in economics that allow people to evaluate findings and construct theories that make sense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As far as what the assumptions entail, all I can think of is that they allow people to engage the scientific process without providing what would be interpreted as nonsensical results.

Quantum tunneling seems nonsensical. A thing cannot be where it doesn't have enough energy to get to.
But that's actually the nonsense right there.
The fact is that quantum tunneling is real, and not nonsense, and once one liberates their mind from the constraints telling it (their mind) what to see and just let it see, this is clear. Once you see direct evidence of quantum tunneling, you have only the choice to ignore your observations or accept them. To me, the choice of ignorance seems the more nonsensical of the two choices.

If the interpretation is that the result is nonsensical then either the result is nonsensical, or the people saying so are refusing to believe what they have observed. Or they are being told something without any personal observation and they're right to be dubious, at least until they are provided with a means of observing.

One can't even do the scientific method unless one assumes things like consistency of phenomena.

I strongly disagree.

The scientific method does not assume consistency of phenomena; it reveals consistency of phenomena; it ignores inconsistent phenomena. It does not stipulate that all phenomena are consistent. It doesn't even stipulate that the scientific method is the best method.

It just says, "I am a method which seems to work pretty well at helping humans to assemble a set of statements which are 'true,'" in the sense that we can make predictions about the future of certain things in the real world and play fun games on our cell phones.

I do agree that one cannot really have any faith in the predictive power of scientific results if one does not believe in consistency of phenomena. That said, how many times do you need to see a prediction come true before you start to question this hold-out position you have espoused on consistency? I'd think at the very least, you might come to the conclusion that, while consistency hasn't been proved (as such), it does seem to allow us to make cool toys if we pretend that the consistency we think we know is at least going to keep up for a few more years.

There are a handful of base assumptions in economics that allow people to evaluate findings and construct theories that make sense.

What are the other base assumptions along with "People are rational actors?"

What are the strongest theories in economics and what evidence is used to support them?
What would constitute a valid counter-example to refute these ideas?

[wufwugy]

I strongly disagree.

The scientific method does not assume consistency of phenomena; it reveals consistency of phenomena; it ignores inconsistent phenomena. It does not stipulate that all phenomena are consistent. It doesn't even stipulate that the scientific method is the best method.

It just says, "I am a method which seems to work pretty well at helping humans to assemble a set of statements which are 'true,'" in the sense that we can make predictions about the future of certain things in the real world and play fun games on our cell phones.

I do agree that one cannot really have any faith in the predictive power of scientific results if one does not believe in consistency of phenomena. That said, how many times do you need to see a prediction come true before you start to question this hold-out position you have espoused on consistency? I'd think at the very least, you might come to the conclusion that, while consistency hasn't been proved (as such), it does seem to allow us to make cool toys if we pretend that the consistency we think we know is at least going to keep up for a few more years.

I pulled the "consistency of phenomena" from another source. I don't have any philosophy of knowledge training or anything, so I can't get into the nitty gritty of this.

Outside of that, I'm a little confused since some of what you say looks like you're in agreement.

What are the other base assumptions along with "People are rational actors?"

I'm not well-versed in them, but here are three assumptions for the neoclassical metatheory: 1. People have rational preferences among outcomes. 2. Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits. 3. People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

Pulled from here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/...Economics.html

What are the strongest theories in economics and what evidence is used to support them?
What would constitute a valid counter-example to refute these ideas?

Honestly I don't know how to classify this stuff correctly. Neoclassical economics is a theory. Moral hazard is a theory. There's the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Supply and Demand, monetarism, Austrian economics, Keynesian economics, Rational Choice theory, and many others.

I'd probably say that most things in economics can be derived from supply and demand, but really when it comes to the technical, qualitative construction of theory, I'm out of my depth.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Outside of that, I'm a little confused since some of what you say looks like you're in agreement."

It's a tricky point. I assume that phenomena are consistent, but I am a scientist, not science itself.

There is no assumption in science that our scientific laws will hold true tomorrow. Only the assertion that they have held true for today.

My faith that phenomena will remain consistent exists outside of science.

[wufwugy]

My faith that phenomena will remain consistent exists outside of science.

Yeah that's the point I was trying to make.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah that's the point I was trying to make.

That's fine, but I thought you said that in order to do science I have to assume things which are not falsifiable.

I don't have to assume this in order to do science. I only have to assume this when I make plans.

I can do science and have no idea or care whether or not what I'm doing will be repeatable. The act of repeating does not rely on a prediction that future repetitions will be the same. It only relies on today's repeat matching with the report of yesterday's.

To me, it is not foolish to be dubious whether or not there is enough in the past to presume it will remain... however... I don't walk out my 2nd story window when I leave my house out of lack in faith in the consistency in gravity.

So it's tricky. The assumption of consistency is inherent in human behavior, but it's not woven into the methodology or lessons of science. Even though science produces predictive sentences, which seems to imply a certain expectation of consistency... this expectation is an illusion because if there is a lack of consistency, then science will discard the inconsistent laws, making them no longer science.

[a500lbgorilla]

That's fine, but I thought you said that in order to do science I have to assume things which are not falsifiable.

I don't have to assume this in order to do science. I only have to assume this when I make plans.

Or, what does it take for you to act?

[a500lbgorilla]

I brought up the lunar laser-reflector array on the Moon and how it impacted the scientific community - all to suggest that the conspiracy sprawls very wide and you can't just call into question the "astronauts" and "NASA" but many others as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...riment#Results

It was about what is known, though. He wanted to list off the few things he really knew based on his sense/experience knowledge, and I pointed out that he didn't even know those things by talking about magicians and how they can make you sense-perceive something that doesn't match the truth of what happened.

We glance off of a lot of topics. I think we were on to the idea of "shorting" things in the wake of brexit very quickly, and I actually heard one of my coworkers (older) say "ni**ers" effortlessly. It was a great morning chat.