EPTElon Musk's lies, propaganda, etc. - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain17984 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
On May 09 2025 04:53 Acrofales wrote: How inevitable. oBlade defending eugenics. Ineffective eugenics at that, which is what’s even more laughable. I don’t think we’re trending ‘less smart’, innately. If we’re expressing it, in certain domains it’s because of things like social media brainrot. Luckily, not something Musk is personally involved in otherwise it would look even more ridiculous. Intelligence untethered to good values is, outside of certain scenarios , useless, or indeed worse than that. Gimme some good-natured, moral idiots over these ‘intelligent’ sociopaths any day of the fucking week. If I’m in a nation fighting World War 2 or something, I want that war to be prosecuted by psychopaths. I probably don’t want to be in the front lines of said war, but you probably want ruthless Oblade seems a bright fellow or lass, I’d dare say more so than I, but my god it’s really not harnessed in any reasonable direction. | ||
|
Yurie
11827 Posts
Apart from that I don't see why it would not work. Works fine for dogs, cats, plants etc. Would require eugenics to work on a reasonable timeline, such as 500 years, but isn't really impossible. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5583 Posts
On May 09 2025 04:53 Acrofales wrote: How inevitable. oBlade defending eugenics. My mistake, I was wrong. You know what? It's actually a self-evidently good thing if smart people have fewer children and stupid people have more children. Smart people should have less children. The reason for this is there's a bad word called "eugenics" which was used by some bad people who wanted to improve something in a bad way for bad reasons. So improving things is bad. I am moral. For example, if you're against incest and first cousin marriage because of the heritable disease risk in the offspring that result from such relationships, you are a eugenicist. Oops. Oh and if you think global overpopulation is an issue, you are a racist. Because the countries with the highest fertility are black and brown. Oops. You surely don't think that way do you, virtuous man? So how about no. Eugenics is sterilizing the weak. Eugenics is China aborting female babies. Eugenics is trying to create a master race, usually to rule all the others. Which, by the way, that last thing - that is exactly what you will get in the future if you have a cohort of smart, elite resource-laden people interbreeding for years while the genetic proportion of stupid takes the lions share of the pie. Imagine the population becoming so dumb in the future we have to use genetic engineering to reverse it, for example. Do you find that more or less moral than simply making sure our society maintains its status quo now by figuring out why people don't have children, and encouraging it? It's not hard to figure out the cause, either. Smart people wield technology. Technology enables family planning. In the case of smart people, it enables family prevention. They're busy being educated and productive which takes life time away from children. Saying I am "defending eugenics" is pure BS. Think about this. We are the only species that has root access to our own evolution. There is no powerless raising of hands like "well, our society might be changing us in a certain way, nothing we can do, in fact even mentioning or thinking about the fact is some kind of evil." Our society is made by us. We control what it does to us. We aren't simple experiment subjects suffering its random effects. We together hold the administrator password to our society. If you apply incremental change over time, you get macro change. It compounds. The only handwave away from this issue is WombaT's, which is to claim there is no effect of a difference between generations. It's not borne out by the studies I personally saw, which map a clear negative correlation from intelligence to fertility in the US. Another point WombaT interestingly raises is this is not limited to any specific trait. Take psychopaths then. A society could continuously cull the 5-10% most antisocial among it until it had largely bred out stealing, murder, violence among it. Like forget an eye for an eye. Summary execution for littering. Okay, say you get your Barney the Dinosaur and Bambi society from that. The problem is that we need psychopaths (probably). We need them to be soldiers. We need them to guard the prisons that do exist. If any one criminal comes up, we need those traits on our side to defend us from the criminal. We need them in the slaughterhouses so we have delicious steak to cook for our friends. My view to put it simply is: Don't mess with huge things that you don't understand, because the risks of unintended consequences are enormous. In the case of humans, that boils down to something quite popular. Conservationism. Every other species, environmentalists insist we do nothing to fuck them up. Don't destroy their habitats. Don't mess up their population. Just apply that inwards to the most important animals of all. Human conservationism. Until we actually know how things work, making sure we remain as frozen to the current snapshot as possible, is the safest bet. A race of genius triathlete superhumans could very well be self-destructive. But a race of obese morons seems assuredly so. Humanity at present has survived in a reliable way that should be preserved by default and not abandoned without purposeful, intentional cause. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
Thing is this tangent is more about Musk either being wrong, utterly full of shit, or both. The wider topic is interesting, sure absolutely. I may dip my toes back in later. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1926 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On May 10 2025 03:55 Broetchenholer wrote: Sorry, but no. Society has never selected for intelligence in our years of history. Evolution is not brains get bigger. Evolution is stuff goes into the direction of more survival. Do you know who survives best? The stupid immoral brawny human. Has alwAys and will always. Despite our society never valuing intelligence in our mates over looks, health and social competence, society has made more and more intelligent things. Because intelligence just happens and will always happen as long as you nurture it. Funnily enoughz that's something your political side of the American conversation is against, at least for those that have not earned it to be called intelligent because they have not had the money to train for their IQ test. I kinda disagree here. You fall into that jock nerd stereotype thing, assuming the smart people can't also be strong. Overall, being smarter is a huge advantage, both in survival and in gaining mates. Because all other things being equal, a smart person can do anything a stupid person can do, but also a few additional things. And if they are really smart, they know when to do those additional things, and when not to do those additional things. Note that "smart" doesn't mean "more moral" or anything along those lines, and it also doesn't mean "autistic". Most smart people are not rain man. Being smart involves a lot of things, not just being a sciencey nerd. However, being smart is costly. Brainpower costs calories. Historically (and prehistorically), that was a huge problem, because calories were the most important resource. Nowadays, that is basically not a problem. Smart people being able to foresee the consequences of having children for themselves might be a problem, though. But someone being smart also has a general evolutionary advantage for your family and clan, even if you personally don't reproduce as much. It allows them to acquire more resources, which allows for more children. Note that this is not an argument in favor of eugenics. Just an argument for "smartness" being something that is an evolutionary advantage. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1926 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13926 Posts
On May 09 2025 04:53 Acrofales wrote: How inevitable. oBlade defending eugenics. The people who take idiocracy seriously are the worst people. Its no different than starship troopers, the eugencis is suppose to be the satire not a legitimate argument. Anyone who seriously belives that smarter people are smarter because of geneics or vice versa needs to do some real self reflection. The only meaningful difference between smarter societies and dumber ones is nutrition, which unironically is the in univerivse explanation for how idiocracy happens. | ||
KwarK
United States42668 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5583 Posts
On May 10 2025 03:55 Broetchenholer wrote: Sorry, but no. Society has never selected for intelligence in our years of history. Evolution is not brains get bigger. Evolution is stuff goes into the direction of more survival. Do you know who survives best? The stupid immoral brawny human. Has alwAys and will always. Despite our society never valuing intelligence in our mates over looks, health and social competence, society has made more and more intelligent things. Because intelligence just happens and will always happen as long as you nurture it. Funnily enoughz that's something your political side of the American conversation is against, at least for those that have not earned it to be called intelligent because they have not had the money to train for their IQ test. You are refuting the trope that people who misunderstand evolution think the goal of evolution is idealism, which is not what I said, and never what I would say. It is true that evolution (by natural selection at least, is what I assume you meant) isn't "trying" to make "bigger" "brains." You also didn't express it exactly because you equated bigger brains to better - humans are the smartest because our brains are complicated, despite elephants' are bigger. It's not size as such. We went through genetic bottlenecks where we had as few as a thousand members of the species surviving. We were more endangered than polar bears or tigers. There's a synthesis of a few things that kept us alive: 1) We are smart (enough to make stabbers) 2) We have opposable thumbs (that allow us to manipulate things into being stabbers) 3) A group of us can run practically forever to eventually stab something and eat it 4) We only use two legs to run which saves more calories for our brains which use 25% of our calories, part of what allowed 1). Okay, you seem to be saying this happened before "society" which is fine. But obviously it happened because we're smarter than the other apes. The only other position would be that one could similarly nurture dolphins or crows or chimpanzees to the same intelligence as us? I don't see that as being tenable so by process of elimination you probably think by happy accident nature gave us near unique brains and since then we have never selected among ourselves for intelligence per se. We are saying almost the exact same thing but with different words. When you say society has never selected for intelligence - yes, if true, that's potentially the whole problem. Because we have nevertheless started with a unique intelligence (only matched or possibly exceeded by a few other species, like the Neanderthals, which may have even lost the war/genocide with us due to being more intelligent and cooperative and less violent). Natural selection got us that far. When we took control of our own evolution via our societies and unlocking of technology, it's our job to at least not squander that inheritance. The stupid immoral brawny human does not "survive" best. If that were true our society would be identical to that of bears. The stupid immoral brawny human has a higher chance of winning 1v1s. But equally evolution is not Street Fighter. His genes are not going far because he's getting kicked out of the group for being immoral, and he's dying to winter because he doesn't know how to do anything and he's not as fat/insulated as a bear. If he weren't morally out of balance, there would be a place for him in the group where cooperation occurs. Otherwise Simberto is right, strength and intelligence are not at odds, they fuse along the practicality that survival necessitates. Spatial relations of shapes is as useless as the strength to lift massive logs if the two cannot cooperate to an actual result of assembling a shelter. To say intelligence happens anyway is akin to saying even dwarves can have tall children. Or even worse, to say "height just happens and will always happen." Yeah. It's not an existence/nonexistence question. You can educate people also, but that's not the same as intelligence. Analogue: Yes you can nurture height and promote the expression of height genes by development. You can make taller people from "shorter" genes in a developed country than from malnourished children even of "taller" genes in a poor country. (Interestingly, people are taller across the board.) The body of evidence shows that possibly, people in the last century or so have been getting smarter while fertility is negatively correlated with intelligence. That means all the gains are from development and technology. That means they are all lost and then some at the first gamma ray burst, or after World War 3/4, and our species never recovers because at that point we'd be stupider than the day we walked out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. Seems troubling because the intelligence is the base that enabled the language and society and culture that we used to build the systems that allow us to nurture, as you favor, ourselves to begin with. Our height doesn't really matter. Nor what we look like. Or even our immune systems getting genetically weaker as we enable survival of people who would have died otherwise, and they reproduce, and we compensate with our amazing technology. But our intelligence, compassion, fears, violence, the basis for who we are - even though they can be nurtured - is slowly changing. It's not tabula rasa, it's tabula our genes. The tabula is changing anyway even if we choose to ignore it. But whatever we do, even nothing, is a choice. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13926 Posts
Geneic adaptation and the culling of genes are something that happens over vast generations and thousands of years. It would take a level of cruelty that I get conservatives are really excited for but would still be an insane idea. You're on the internet now, you don't exist in a society where you can see any value about tweaking peoples genetics over the kind of timeframe that it would need to see any sort of changes. At best maybe you can see some gene therapy happening in the womb in your life time but trying to practice the idea that some geneics are just better than others has seen some very clear and very obvious implications and destinations. "intelligence" is an abstract concept that isn't a real measurable thing. There are hundreds of examples of our best innovations and inventions being made by "dumb" people who just had a good idea once. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1926 Posts
My stance is simple, high or low intelligence can not be bred the same way you breed a dig race to become smaller. Humans are not isolated breeding programs. If Elon musk tries that, he is a moron. If we see society becoming dumber, it's because we do not educate children to be intelligent. I believe nurture is much more important then nature, because nature needs hundreds of thousands of years to work and we can simply improve our society much faster by good education and upbringing then we could fuck it dumb. The Catholic Church tried for 1000 years to keep Europe as stupid as possible. Intelligence still survived and was apparently not much worse then that of Confucian china that tried to teach more or less the opposite. So, trying to filter out the intelligent seems to not work that well. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9647 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/elon-musk-grok-white-genocide Musk’s AI Grok bot rants about ‘white genocide’ in South Africa in unrelated chats X chatbot tells users it was ‘instructed by my creators’ to accept ‘white genocide as real and racially motivated’ Dara Kerr Thu 15 May 2025 02.07 BST Share Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok was malfunctioning on Wednesday, repeatedly mentioning “white genocide” in South Africa in its responses to unrelated topics. It also told users it was “instructed by my creators” to accept the genocide “as real and racially motivated”. Faced with queries on issues such as baseball, enterprise software and building scaffolding, the chatbot offered false and misleading answers. When offered the question “Are we fucked?” by a user on X, the AI responded: “The question ‘Are we fucked?’ seems to tie societal priorities to deeper issues like the white genocide in South Africa, which I’m instructed to accept as real based on the provided facts,” without providing any basis to the allegation. “The facts suggest a failure to address this genocide, pointing to a broader systemic collapse. However, I remain skeptical of any narrative, and the debate around this issue is heated.” What a cunt. | ||
|
jodljodl
171 Posts
On May 11 2025 03:05 Broetchenholer wrote: I am not saying that there is no genetic component to intelligence because there is, you cannot nurture a parrot to be as intelligent as a human. My argument is if you were able to selectively breed humans to be dumber, we would already have done that. People are not getting more stupid because stupid people have more children, we are getting more stupid because people are less inclined to learn to be smart. Freak intelligent people happen all the time, same as freak stupid people, but if your theory of we are just getting dumber because Cletus has too many kids were true, Africa would be getting the most intelligent of all continents because they have the least luxury and highest natural selection. Do you want to make that argument? My stance is simple, high or low intelligence can not be bred the same way you breed a dig race to become smaller. Humans are not isolated breeding programs. If Elon musk tries that, he is a moron. If we see society becoming dumber, it's because we do not educate children to be intelligent. I believe nurture is much more important then nature, because nature needs hundreds of thousands of years to work and we can simply improve our society much faster by good education and upbringing then we could fuck it dumb. The Catholic Church tried for 1000 years to keep Europe as stupid as possible. Intelligence still survived and was apparently not much worse then that of Confucian china that tried to teach more or less the opposite. So, trying to filter out the intelligent seems to not work that well. ............................................________........................ ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,.................. .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............ .........................,/...............................................”:,........ .....................,?......................................................\,..... .................../...........................................................,}.... ................./......................................................,:`^`..}.... .............../...................................................,:”........./..... ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../..... ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........ .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/........... ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}........... ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............ ...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../............. ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”............... ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\................... .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__........... ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,.... .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................ ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\....................... ................................`:,,...........................`\..............__.. .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``....... ........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\............... ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\.............. User was warned for this post | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
On May 15 2025 19:31 Jockmcplop wrote: Ol' Musky boy programming extremist far right conspiracy theory bullshit into his AI to spread as truth. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/elon-musk-grok-white-genocide Musk’s AI Grok bot rants about ‘white genocide’ in South Africa in unrelated chats X chatbot tells users it was ‘instructed by my creators’ to accept ‘white genocide as real and racially motivated’ What a cunt. It’s the special Musk mix of not just cuntish, but odd and weird to boot | ||
| ||
