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.

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

[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*

[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

.

[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

[a500lbgorilla]

So M2M, what are your thoughts?

[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]

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.

[wufwugy]

:^)

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

That's not the only other option though. Up is either up (or some other exact designation) or it's maybe up, maybe down, maybe something else. The whole maximizing utility thing arises from economists using the assumption that people are always trying to have more good than have more bad. So far this appears to be a reasonable assumption.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

So no matter the outcome, it's said that the impetus was identical. What's the utility in this word? That's all I ask.

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

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

I only know that I sometimes make choices with low risk and I sometimes make choices with high risk. I sometimes make choices which I know will have negative consequences. I frequently do things which undermine my conscious goals.

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.

To be clear, I'm not saying the thin definition is bad. I'm saying I don't see the utility in offering it as a starting point if it's not used as a foundation for greater understanding.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

@bold... these sentences are meaningless when the meaning of "good" is left to each individual to define however they want and to consider whatever time-scale they like. This puts the definition in a spot where it has a subjective meaning for each perspective on each situation. There is no "truth" in the word when it bears all meanings.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

Go for it. It's a living language.

[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]

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

No that person is going to make a decision to do it or not do it. He will always pick one or the other. It is the act of actively picking one that is maximising his utility. If we understood people better we'd be able to say what that person was going to pick before they did & why.

I don't believe this has anything to do with long term aims or goals. It'll be a function of payout over time type scenario. If you think of it as there is a pain medication that if you take you'll be addicted to there would be a point where you were in enough pain where that short term benefit becomes worth it.

You can also argue that really comprehending the consequences of your decisions is actually a really hard thing to do. Whereas short term effects aren't.

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

I'm understanding it as more of here is a function that max with their choices what that function is is more the point of contention & clearly it's so abstract or whatever that it becomes a bit of a nonsense but it certainly can be applied to very simple scenarios in a very concrete way.

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.

This is agree with. I'm not expecting people to understand the decisions they are making but I don't see why that won't become better understood with time & they are still making a choice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

I'm not sure why my (lack of) understanding on the matter is relevant, mostly. Nonetheless, I think people have a variety of motivations which drive them throughout any given hour of every day. I can't figure out how I'm supposed to know what any of those are, though.

I can't think of any way to find out other than to ask the people why they did what they did.

Problem is: people are unreliable sources - especially when asked about their motivations.

Even discarding the unreliable reports about their motivations, I find the statement that there is no such thing as intentionally self-destructive behavior to be ignoring a wealth of evidence.

To write off the matter as if to say that all people are basically good is fine. You'll never hear me encourage anyone to act as though anything else were true. I've said repeatedly that I will choose to believe this even against evidence showing me otherwise.

So on the one hand, I think it's a fine attitude to hold about people - that they always act toward the greatest good they conceive. On the other hand, it seems to be blindly at odds with the actual reality of human experiences.

I'm not turning to economics for moral piece of mind, though. I can find much better sources for that.

[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]

Even discarding the unreliable reports about their motivations, I find the statement that there is no such thing as intentionally self-destructive behavior to be ignoring a wealth of evidence.

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

Try this: develop a consumption model three times based on three different assumptions: (1) assume people choose what they think/feel they want in that moment, (2) assume people choose what they think/feel they don't want in that moment, and (3) assume people choose randomly. In (2) and (3), you're gonna come up with some pretty terrible models that, if you're a business, will send you into bankruptcy.

This is why the base assumption is that people act rationally (choose what they want), even though it means that all actions are rational which makes the designation seem meaningless. If you try to model based on some other assumption, you get bad models.

Perhaps there is analogy in physics. An assumption at the base of science is that phenomena are consistent. If I'm looking at this assumption the way that I interpret you and Rilla looking at the economics assumption, I would say this: doesn't this mean that if something is observed it is by definition consistent? But what if it's actually inconsistent? I mean, lots of stuff looks inconsistent right? Doesn't this mean that the assumption that phenomena are consistent is meaningless since everything is consistent no matter what and there is no way to tell if something isn't?

The answer to the above is that if we assume phenomena are inconsistent or random, we can no longer do science because all our experiments and practices and models would be nonsensical. So, we use a base assumption that is not falsifiable in order to make sense of things.

Does this help?

[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).

[MadMojoMonkey]

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. If they weren't coerced, then they make their own choices, which means they are responsible for their actions.

My point is that it's more a statement which allows any moral or legal discussion to begin. After all, if we aren't making the choices which we choose, then how can we be judged for them or punished? It's a fundamental starting point in those topics, because it lays a foundation of personal responsibility, w/o which, the entire discussion is moot.

You're going further, though. You're saying people not only choose their own choices, but that they always choose what they believe to be best for them - maybe best in that moment. That's where I don't necessarily see where you're going with it.

Try this: develop a consumption model three times based on three different assumptions: (1) assume people choose what they think/feel they want in that moment, (2) assume people choose what they think/feel they don't want in that moment, and (3) assume people choose randomly.

You do your own homework, cheater!

In (2) and (3), you're gonna come up with some pretty terrible models that, if you're a business, will send you into bankruptcy.

I'm not gonna come up with anything. Have you given it your honest effort to do so, either? I'm somehow certain there are counter-examples which show that this statement is, at the very least, too broad.

It seems there's a decent amount of (3) involved in any good Murcan's consumer week. If you're not buying random sheet, then...
Bad Commie! Go to the mall and at least pretend you're trying to blend in.

This is why the base assumption is that people act rationally (choose what they want), even though it means that all actions are rational which makes the designation seem meaningless. If you try to model based on some other assumption, you get bad models.

What about all the examples of "bad models" enacted which exist?

How's this:
I propose that people choose rationally, and most of the time, they're focused on self-preservation, and improvement, even... but sometimes they do random stuff at their whimsy, too. Some do things and afterward say, "IDK why I was doing it. I wanted to stop doing it, but I kept doing it." when they describe that time they watched themself slowly lock their keys in their car.
I can prove it's the right description, 'cause look around.
If you try to base your model on anything else, you'll get hairy palms and a severe case of Mycoxafloppin.
So don't even think about that, bro.

Besides, since my theory describes everything all the time, the entire world economy is the result of it, the rise and fall of businesses are like tiny waves in the tide of nations. It's totes definitely because my theory is the only possible right theory. duh.

Perhaps there is analogy in physics. An assumption at the base of science is that phenomena are consistent. If I'm looking at this assumption the way that I interpret you and Rilla looking at the economics assumption, I would say this: doesn't this mean that if something is observed it is by definition consistent? But what if it's actually inconsistent? I mean, lots of stuff looks inconsistent right? Doesn't this mean that the assumption that phenomena are consistent is meaningless since everything is consistent no matter what and there is no way to tell if something isn't?

Ugh. Really?
Look at the history of physics, man. It's a long, sordid tale of raging nerds saying wrong things to prove to the other nerds how wrong they were, thereby climbing the nerd ladder of saying things very slightly less wrong than the poor nerd who was wrong. The upshot is that we have a collection of very clever things to say which haven't been proven wrong, yet.

History tells us that everything we now believe to be true displaced another explanation which was quite similar, but ultimately wrong, but which we believed to be true right up 'till that one raging nerd wouldn't shut up about it. It's only a matter of time until the next raging nerd comes along and shows us how ever so slightly wrong we are, now.

Seriously, though. In science, the things we say are falsifiable predictions. If even one example of the prediction being false is found, then we stop saying that thing. The fact that we say things are consistent is because we limit our topics of discussion very rigidly to things which can be predicted. This necessarily implies consistency. We only talk about things which are consistent. If a thing is shown to be inconsistent, then we stop talking about it.

We don't stop studying it. We just stop claiming we can make falsifiable predictions about it.

The answer to the above is that if we assume phenomena are inconsistent or random, we overcome the struggle against intuition that Quantum Mechanics presented over 100 years ago and make smart phones.

FYP

So, we use a base assumption that is not falsifiable in order to make sense of things.

That's literally literally the opposite of science.

Does this help?

Was it good for you?

EDIT: to add another literally

[JKDS]

popping by to say two things.

First

History tells us that everything we now believe to be true displaced another explanation which was quite similar, but ultimately wrong, but which we believed to be true right up 'till that one raging nerd wouldn't shut up about it. It's only a matter of time until the next raging nerd comes along and shows us how ever so slightly wrong we are, now.

Thats awesome, and I've never heard the history of science explained like that before. Its totes true though.

Before I get to my next point, heres a distraction!



Alright alright. Second point.

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

[wufwugy]

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. If they weren't coerced, then they make their own choices, which means they are responsible for their actions.

Even if coerced, making a decision means that your being, at whatever level, felt that decision was in its best interest. At the very least, that's the assumption.

You're going further, though. You're saying people not only choose their own choices, but that they always choose what they believe to be best for them - maybe best in that moment. That's where I don't necessarily see where you're going with it.

Can you think of an instance where a being chose something that it truly did not want? If the being wanted something different, would it not have chosen that thing?

I'm not gonna come up with anything. Have you given it your honest effort to do so, either? I'm somehow certain there are counter-examples which show that this statement is, at the very least, too broad.

It seems there's a decent amount of (3) involved in any good Murcan's consumer week. If you're not buying random sheet, then...
Bad Commie! Go to the mall and at least pretend you're trying to blend in.

How's this:
I propose that people choose rationally, and most of the time, they're focused on self-preservation, and improvement, even... but sometimes they do random stuff at their whimsy, too. Some do things and afterward say, "IDK why I was doing it. I wanted to stop doing it, but I kept doing it." when they describe that time they watched themself slowly lock their keys in their car.
I can prove it's the right description, 'cause look around.
If you try to base your model on anything else, you'll get hairy palms and a severe case of Mycoxafloppin.
So don't even think about that, bro.

It's not intuitive? I can't think of a single instance in which a being with any level of agency could possibly make a random decision. Randomness requires lack of agency.

Ugh. Really?
Look at the history of physics, man. It's a long, sordid tale of raging nerds saying wrong things to prove to the other nerds how wrong they were, thereby climbing the nerd ladder of saying things very slightly less wrong than the poor nerd who was wrong. The upshot is that we have a collection of very clever things to say which haven't been proven wrong, yet.

History tells us that everything we now believe to be true displaced another explanation which was quite similar, but ultimately wrong, but which we believed to be true right up 'till that one raging nerd wouldn't shut up about it. It's only a matter of time until the next raging nerd comes along and shows us how ever so slightly wrong we are, now.

Seriously, though. In science, the things we say are falsifiable predictions. If even one example of the prediction being false is found, then we stop saying that thing. The fact that we say things are consistent is because we limit our topics of discussion very rigidly to things which can be predicted. This necessarily implies consistency. We only talk about things which are consistent. If a thing is shown to be inconsistent, then we stop talking about it.

We don't stop studying it. We just stop claiming we can make falsifiable predictions about it.

FYP

That's literally the opposite of science.

So, you can probably tell I'm a huge fan of internet debates. Well, the time I got obliterated in an internet debate the most was against a guy who had the lockdown on philosophy of science in a way I had never seen before. One of my main takeaways was that at the root of science exists entirely unscientific assumptions. When we're discussing base assumptions, we're not talking science per se; we're talking the things for which we can't get any deeper; hence we have no option but to make assumptions. This is at the root of the most rigorous and established orthodoxy of knowledge.

Evaluating base assumptions with the scientific process doesn't work. The scientific process is itself an assumption. Every field of knowledge has at its base assumptions.

[wufwugy]

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even if coerced, making a decision means that your being, at whatever level, felt that decision was in its best interest. At the very least, that's the assumption.

As far as I know, coercion is being physically forced to do something against your will.
IDK what you mean by coercion.

(1)Can you think of an instance where a being chose something that it truly did not want? (2) If the being wanted something different, would it not have chosen that thing?

(1) Blah blah yargle blargle. Nothing I say stops you from asking this question. Why do you ignore my answers?
Is it because I'm not arguing with you on your right to set the definitions at this point?
Or do you want more angles on how this is a naive way to describe humans? How about this:

People are complicated. We have layers of understanding and layers of emotions which blend into our perception of every moment. We constantly face decisions about which we are conflicted, but must choose quickly. We are not clearly definitively wanting the thing we chose. To say otherwise diminishes us from our unavoidable complex understanding of ourselves and our stimuli. It ignores our struggle to find "what is good?" in a morally ambiguous world.

Humans...
...are like onions.

But none of that matters because I'm willing to accept your definition as you stipulate it. It's your field, it's your first principle. It's your right to tell me exactly what you're saying. So in the terms of economics, I accept your use of the word rational to mean what you say it means. Can we move on?

(2) IDK at best, and I don't see how you can possibly know, either. What proof do offer to support your answer, either way. What would you consider ample counter-proof?

Recall that I have posited thus:
Some [people] do things and afterward say, "IDK why I was doing it. I wanted to stop doing it, but I kept doing it." when they describe that time they [...].

This is a common theme among people who have put their lives into harms way to rescue someone in a moment of need. They weren't thinking about maximizing or minimizing anything, they were half watching themselves do the things.

I did seriously lock my keys in my car once and it was literally (one literally) in slow motion. I was sitting there. I took out the keys from the ignition and set them beside me. Then a bit later I got out, locked the door and stood there looking at my keys and somehow calmly closing the door while mentally screaming at myself to not make this terrible thing happen. It happened.

Are you saying that I chose to lock my keys in my car? Because the facts in the story are that I consciously saw that it could happen, with time to NOT do it, and then proceeded to continuing to not want to do it as I saw it happen. By me.

So if that's not a counter-example, then you're not saying anything at all. If the person telling you what happens says they didn't want to do it and you say, "but you did it, so you wanted to," then you're either not listening to them or you're stripping all meaning from the word "want" and we're right back to you saying nothing more than "People do things" when you say "people are rational actors."

It's not intuitive? I can't think of a single instance in which a being with any level of agency could possibly make a random decision. Randomness requires lack of agency.

You keep saying that you can't think of something like as though that's somehow proof of anything other than your inability to think of it. That's not anything I can objectively observe and agree with.

Furthermore, I posit that you can not possibly know why anyone does anything unless you ask them, and humans are well documented to lie about this stuff. So get to your point.

People are rational actors... i.e. they do stuff... and...

So, you can probably tell I'm a huge fan of internet debates. Well, the time I got obliterated in an internet debate the most was against a guy who had the lockdown on philosophy of science in a way I had never seen before. One of my main takeaways was that at the root of science exists entirely unscientific assumptions. When we're discussing base assumptions, we're not talking science per se; we're talking the things for which we can't get any deeper; hence we have no option but to make assumptions. This is at the root of the most rigorous and established orthodoxy of knowledge.

Evaluating base assumptions with the scientific process doesn't work. The scientific process is itself an assumption. Every field of knowledge has at its base assumptions.

Don't pretend we're talking philosophy of knowledge level stuff, here.

You're trying to say that "we don't know that making falsifiable predictions and having non-invested parties test them to find a falsifiable occurrence and when this fails a lot, we consider it knowledge," is in question, here. It's not.

If anything what's in question is things like the Schroedinger equation.

It is true that the Schroedinger equation was simply hypothesized with no theoretical justification, and it works like a dream. To equate this to your statement seems to wholly misunderstand how many amazing things can be predicted and observed with this equation. It's not a hollow statement setting up a definition of terms. It makes bold predictions which most intelligent physicists believed were a load of hogwash.

E.g. The Schroedinger Equation predicts quantum tunneling. Meaning a particle has a non-0 probability of being where it doesn't have enough energy to get to. Like if you roll a ball up the hill, no matter what shape the hill is, the ball will not go higher than its initial kinetic energy equated to the change in gravitational potential energy. The initial speed determines the maximum height. The Schroedinger equation says this is not true for particles. Many physicists were like... "Ha! This can't be true!"
It is true. Schroedinger was slightly more right. His equation can't handle relativistic electrons in large atoms, but it's pretty good. Not as good as Dirac's equation, though. Dirac slightly more right.

Your statement has yet to be linked to any bold predictions.
I'm actually surprised at how many times I've described physics and the scientific process to you, but you still say the most backward things about these topics. I can practically pre-emp your next move by saying that the continuted progress of physics is that of refinement at this point. All the new surprises will come from energy densities well beyond what humans encounter without trying really, really hard.

[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.

[rong]

popping by to say two things.

First



Thats awesome, and I've never heard the history of science explained like that before. Its totes true though.

Before I get to my next point, heres a distraction!



Alright alright. Second point.

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

This is the only reasonable alternative to utility maximization I've ever heard. It's effectively the same thing, but technically different and equally as plausible.

[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]

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.

Big cluster of neurons near the sense organs, built by genes, molded by evolution, adapted to experience, attempt to survive. Lots of overlapping circuits and newly growing functions that battle out for what to do in any given situation.

Something like that.

[a500lbgorilla]

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

You ever play a game that seemed to operate smoothly, but would bug out and do strange things if you entered in the right game-breaking orders?



Sometimes, the choice-methods of people that were developed to tackle certain problems can be broken when met with an exploit.

[a500lbgorilla]

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

Sure, but still. It's one of those things where you should pay attention to the idea of utility maximizing, pay attention to the idea of harm-reduction, and pay attention to a lot of other plausible ideas. Don't get married to one easy-to-serve idea.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.