13-12-2002 21:52									#121
	Tired of ads?

Another short reply to Drogue:

quote: Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

	13-12-2002 21:57									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Archaic http://www.swcollege.com/econ/manki...ch20/links.html That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

I'll try to read it this weekend when I find some time between other activities this weekend such as studies, ACDG, Diplomacy games, SMAC PBEM games, reading of a book about the Chinese civilization... If not, my two-week christmas holidays start in a week. Then I should have sufficient time.

	13-12-2002 22:32									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Archaic http://www.swcollege.com/econ/manki...ch20/links.html That should be enough to show that Poverty isn't increasing.

"It is true that the United States continued to suffer increases in inequality of family income (rather than individual earnings) over the past decade."

This quote is from the first article linked to... combined with the rise in "temporary" employment (i.e. not insured, no retirement, etc.), this fact points to actually increasing disparity. There are no laws against laying off temps here in the U.S.- a laborer can have his loyalty ruthlessly exploited and be disposed of at the drop of a hat- homeless before he knows it and despised by ignorant children of privilege watching the marginals.

	13-12-2002 22:55									#124
	Increase Your PM Length

It's only about the US? I believe it's true the income graph has changed from a pyramid to an onion over the last hundred years (the middle class) in the western world due to socialistic measures, but I thought the extremes had widened too. Also that is not taking the entire third world into account...

	14-12-2002 00:20									#125
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yeah... this one is only about the U.S. I don't know about "temp" employment in the Commonwealth and western Europe... Of course protection for labor is virtually non-existent in the rest of the world.

	14-12-2002 07:54									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Maniac That only is true when customers have full knowledge of the corporations' policies, which is impossible as mentioned in my answers to Archaic.

Exactly. Hence why I said it could be argued, I personally do not believe it, or at least that it is outweighed by other factors. I think even when people do know corporations policies, they don't act upon them (examples, GAP and Nike, both heavily publisised human rights issues, both very successful companies). People do not choose where to buy by human rights records, they choose to buy by who has the best product, at the most competative price. Therefore, if a company has a better product, or cheaper means of manufacture (and a cheaper price) it has more power. Yes perfect FM is not American corporatism, but GT's idea of FM is very close IMO. If this is wrong, please show how they differ (late 20th Century American and GT's FM idea for the UNPK).

	14-12-2002 08:02									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Maniac Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

How so? I'm not saying that the children improve on the parents, just that, if a parent has a talent, then their ofspring is more likely to have that talent than the average person. If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents. That is the essence of Darwinism I believe, and has been shown to be most likely in many studies. That is all I meant by

quote: Well, it doesn't mean always passed on, but there is a strong correlation between attributes of the parents and those of the children.

	14-12-2002 08:55									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Maniac Another short reply to Drogue: Unfortunately I do not know any researches or statistics about the strength of the correlations between parents' and children's talents. But if your theory would be true, the nobility of the 18th century should be better rulers than the nobility of the 8th century. Somehow I doubt this is true.

Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

	14-12-2002 17:25									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Drogue If 2 'intelligent' people have a child, it is likely that child will be intelligent too, but it may or may not be more intelligent than it's parents.

Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

quote: Due to inbreading, which is an unrelated external factor.

So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?


I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

	14-12-2002 19:12									#130
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Maniac So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

The great majority of the influencing factors in social darwinism have to do with the environment the child was raised in. A successful family can raise a child in a better environment, giving them more and better opportunities than the average person.

quote: Originally posted by Maniac I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

Let's see......

Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Guilt By Association, Hasty Generalization, Personal Attack and last but not least, Poisoning the Well.

	14-12-2002 19:17									#131
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

@ Archaic

Nasty. Simple. Efficient. But Dirty.

	14-12-2002 19:20									#132
	Put an end to popups!

I'm not going to repeat the fallacies again Pan. Everyone already knows the ones you keep pulling by rote now.

	14-12-2002 20:23									#133
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Maniac Exactly. The word 'likely' is mandatory here. Also that it may be more intelligent, may be just as intelligent, or may be less intelligent. In other words, though a set of genes for better cognitive abilities are probably passed on, it is not at all certain those latent genes come into action. There is a lot of variation between individual cases, and therefore a darwinist system is quite unfair and inefficient compared to a meritocratic one.

Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection. Darwinism and meritocracy are not mutually exclusive, as I happen to agree with both. I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'. I think we as humans have evolved far enough to have a fair society by choice, and not hav it imposed upon us. If however, we haven't, and we are still primarily bound by greed and ambition for ourselves, then I would not support laws to artificially impose fairness upon the people. I support Eudaimonia, meritocracy and fairness by ethos and democracy, rather than by inforcement. How can we have a fair society if in our hearts we are not fair ourselves?

quote: Originally posted by Maniac So without inbreading you believe that the nobility would contain a significantly higher percentage of good leaders than the normal people, when not taking the factor of rearing for leadership into account?

No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

quote: Originally posted by Maniac I get the feeling we have two Nazi race purifiers among us...

That's going a bit far ! What have I (or Archaic for that matter) done that even slightly supports that? Just because I believe in Darwin does not mean I agree with race purifying, and we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism. I have to say I'm surprised you would stoop to such a comment Maniac.

Indeed, as my original post on Darwinism states, I was advocating a centre left, Libertarian meritocracy, using Darwinism, and human nature, as its founding principle. I believe it is the closest to 'fairness' you can get without imposing unnatural strong laws, and that is sustainable. This happens to be the opinion of the economist I was quoting too.

Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

	14-12-2002 20:49									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Pande: While I, along with you, disagree with Archaic on many things, including his debating style, he has a point. The debating mistakes he posted (Appeal to Fear et al) are correct.

Most certainly. All kind of eugenism make me vomit though.

	14-12-2002 20:58									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

True, however no one, to my knowledge, has advocated eugenism in any form yet.

My personal feelings are, if it is unnatural, then it is not a good thing. Natural eugenism (ie. people choosing who to mate with for their characteristics, is fine, but unnatural eugenism, (ie. 'breeding programs' for humans) is not, although there is an argument in support of such a measure.

	15-12-2002 00:41									#136
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I don't understand you guys. Really I don't...

quote: When not taking the factor for rearing for leadership into account? Then they would have no higher percentage than the average. They are just average children. When you factor in the inbreeding, those children become below average.

quote: No, nobles do not necessarily have the genes for leadership. Just because their forefathers were leaders, and had practice, does not make them good leaders. You cannot pass on experience in genes.

Then how can you consider a social darwinist system better than a meritocratic system if the children are just average?? In a social darwinists system people who do not always (just as much as the average person) posses the right talents for a job get educated for that job, while in a meritocratic system people who have the right talents for a job get educated for that job. That is more efficient. In a social darwinists system and a meritocratic/equal chances system everyone can gain just as much experience through education, but because in a equal chances system the students have better inborn talents & genes for that job, they will perform better than the social darwinist system student, who just happen to be born in a rich family.

quote: Um... what do you mean by Darwinist? All I mean is survival of the fittest, natural selection.

With which I agree and one of the reasons I strive for a meritocratic system. "Natural selection" in the market makes sure the best for a certain job gets that job, and everyone begins with equal chances at the start line. What I do not agree with is "Social Darwinism", a system thought up in the bourgeois 19th century which implies that the elite of a society deserve to be there due to their supposed superior talents. Just another philosophy made up to justify that all power lies within a small group and to exclude people from lower classes to rise to that elite.
What do you mean by (Social?) Darwinism? And how does it effect how the supposed best society should look like?

quote: I however, do not see the need to make society 'unnaturally fair'.

How do you define "natural" and "unnatural"? Are laws unnatural according to you?

quote: Just because I believe in Darwin

So do I believe in his evolution theory, but besides the name there is no link between Darwin and Social Darwinism.

quote: we are both Libertarians, the antithisis of Fascism.

That's your opinion. IMO absence of laws on the political and economical field can do nothing else than lead to a corporate dictatorship of multinationals in our current society (arguments provided in my previous posts). Therefore, according to me, Libertarianism after a while automatically leads to a variation of "fascism".

	15-12-2002 05:53									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, I was talking about Darwinism, as in according to Darwin's laws, not Social Darwinism, which as you say, shows little resemblance to the great man's work. I think Darwinism (non-social) is meritocratic, in that who is best equipped survives and prospers. I agree with equal eduication, but I also believe you should be allowed to pass on something (ie. money) that you have earned, as part of the reward for the work during your life.

Natural and unnatural I define by unnatural being something that is enforced, against human nature. Laws can be both, some laws are 'the collective concience' of society (ie. what most people are for or against) and are natural, some are enforced, such as police control, and are unnatural. That's just how I see things however, I'm not to good at explaining what I mean.

Actually, that definition of Libertaianism is what is given both by websites such as the political compass and by the Libertarian Party (in great britain). That Libertarian is not necessarily a completely (or at all) Free Market, which IMO is what leads to corporatiasm. Myself, and many economists (Keynes, Galbraith etc.) are Libertarian and left.

	15-12-2002 07:00									#138
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Just popped in. These threads are becoming increasingly like university tutorials.
Archaic made a point somewhere (least I think it was him) that a lot of good and welcome imput to the game lanquishes in the Rec. Com.

Take note of two points: our citizen registry has not significantly increased (if it has at all);

Less than half of registered citizens post regularly.

The survival of our ACDG species is under threat unless we behave differently. The departure of DE (hopefully temporally) is a sympton of something wrong.

The survival of ACDG requires regular and varied participation and agreement to a code of conduct in discussion and debate. I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

	15-12-2002 07:20									#139
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Hercules I suspect for many the current style of debate in many threads is a big turn off.

yes it is

	15-12-2002 18:39									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits. Just an idea.

	16-12-2002 10:38									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So, no more use of the USA or USSR in the FM debate? I like it.

	16-12-2002 14:11									#142
	Got spare money?

Exactly. If FM comes up, we can debate on in-game effects, and RP in that more money and research vs more drones and eco-damage, and leave economic theory and old Earth out. Is that agreed? Should we amend the contitution for that?

	16-12-2002 14:13									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I don't think a constiutional amendment would eb the way out of this; it would probably end up in endless legal wrangles over what the meaning of a particular comment actually was, and in any case, the constitunio isn't there for stuff like this, it's there to provide a framework for the game's organization. It would be just to have it as an informal agreement.

	16-12-2002 14:19									#144
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OK, do we all agree? (by all I mean myself, Archaic, GT, Maniac and Pande - The main participants)

	16-12-2002 14:20									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, I do, and I assume you do, too. Can't speak for anyone else.

	16-12-2002 15:32									#146
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Ok, shall we try to keep all arguments strictly game based. So that we can RP, but anything old Earth style is off limits.

Agreed, though we shouldnt totally ignore all that happened on Earth, just limit our conversation to quickly quote things that happened centuries ago...

	16-12-2002 16:03									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Agreed with Pan for once (Miracles do happen), but if any strawmans are used, the others should be allowed and obliged to point it out.

	16-12-2002 16:32									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The other possibility is to create a special thread, named, for instance, "Holy Wars". I agree with ceasing this endless debate, but I think your agreement would not last forever (to the next SE choices, I suppose).

	16-12-2002 16:37									#149
	Got spare money?

* Pandemoniak ask Commisioner Lemmy to award the Great Medal of Glory and Honor of the Peacekeepers and the Crisler Prize of Peace to Drogue, for his succesful attempt to make Archaic and myself agree.

	16-12-2002 17:46									#150
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Drogue good work!