Discussion:
[OT] Right Out of Science Fiction
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2020-05-21 20:43:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here's my answer to news stories like this:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447

Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.

Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.

If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.

This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.

John Savard
m***@sky.com
2020-05-22 04:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Quadibloc
2020-05-22 07:39:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.

It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.

This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.

One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".

John Savard
Kevrob
2020-05-22 14:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come

They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.

Kevin R
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 04:36:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-23 09:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.

Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
Kevrob
2020-05-23 11:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government. Washington, DC is the
nation's capital, but New York City its its metropolis.
The Big Apple's suburbs and nearby cities that are at least
partly commuter towns and are in the same market for media
and transportation are considered to be part of the "metropolitan
area," even if they lie across state boundaries in Connecticut or
New Jersey. NYC is New York State's metropolis, also, but Albany
is the capital.

LW-E is right about Cleveland in the early SUPERMAN strips.
Columbus proper has outstripped Cleveland as Ohio's largest city,
but the "metropolitan area" (CSA) of Cleveland–Akron–Canton is
still larger than the CSA [combined statistical area] centered
on the Buckeye State's capital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_statistical_areas

Artist Joe Shuster used his boyhood home of Toronto as an
inspiration for how Metropolis looked.

The Seattle Metropolitans were the first US-based ice hockey
team to win the Stanley Cup!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Metropolitans

Note that one of their Cup tries was canceled by the
"Spanish" flu pandemic.

Kevin R
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 14:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Columbus proper has outstripped Cleveland as Ohio's largest city,
Jeez, it has? I hadn't realized. How does Cincinnati compare?
(Yeah, I could look it up...)
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_statistical_areas
The Seattle Metropolitans were the first US-based ice hockey
team to win the Stanley Cup!
And of course, the New York Mets were/are technically the New York
Metropolitans.

According to local tour guides, the first settlers in Seattle wanted
to name their new settlement "New York," but fortunately the friends
of Chief Sealth overruled them, even if their spelling of the great
chief's name wasn't very accurate.

(And where I live now was initially Slaughter County, but almost the
first thing the citizens did was rename it after Sealth's predecessor,
Chief Kitsap.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Kevrob
2020-05-23 18:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Columbus proper has outstripped Cleveland as Ohio's largest city,
Jeez, it has? I hadn't realized. How does Cincinnati compare?
(Yeah, I could look it up...)
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_statistical_areas
The Seattle Metropolitans were the first US-based ice hockey
team to win the Stanley Cup!
And of course, the New York Mets were/are technically the New York
Metropolitans.
That ad been the _corporate_ name of the expansion club.
It was a nod to a much older one.

[quote]

Metropolitan Club (New York Metropolitans or the Mets) was a 19th-
century professional baseball team that played in New York City from
1880 to 1887. (The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club was the name
chosen in 1961 for the New York Mets, who began play in 1962.)

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Metropolitans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
According to local tour guides, the first settlers in Seattle wanted
to name their new settlement "New York," but fortunately the friends
of Chief Sealth overruled them, even if their spelling of the great
chief's name wasn't very accurate.
Shouldn't it have been "New New York," as in Futurama?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(And where I live now was initially Slaughter County, but almost the
first thing the citizens did was rename it after Sealth's predecessor,
Chief Kitsap.)
Good thing he wasn't named Mistard. :)

Kevin R
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 21:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Columbus proper has outstripped Cleveland as Ohio's largest city,
Jeez, it has? I hadn't realized. How does Cincinnati compare?
(Yeah, I could look it up...)
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_statistical_areas
The Seattle Metropolitans were the first US-based ice hockey
team to win the Stanley Cup!
And of course, the New York Mets were/are technically the New York
Metropolitans.
That ad been the _corporate_ name of the expansion club.
It was a nod to a much older one.
[quote]
Metropolitan Club (New York Metropolitans or the Mets) was a 19th-
century professional baseball team that played in New York City from
1880 to 1887. (The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club was the name
chosen in 1961 for the New York Mets, who began play in 1962.)
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Metropolitans
That's why I said "were/are"; I didn't remember for sure whether it
had formally been changed.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
According to local tour guides, the first settlers in Seattle wanted
to name their new settlement "New York," but fortunately the friends
of Chief Sealth overruled them, even if their spelling of the great
chief's name wasn't very accurate.
Shouldn't it have been "New New York," as in Futurama?
As someone who grew up in Bedford, MA -- not New Bedford, which is
older -- I am not troubled by the same name being used in multiple
places. I mean, Oregon named a major city Portland, not New Portland.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(And where I live now was initially Slaughter County, but almost the
first thing the citizens did was rename it after Sealth's predecessor,
Chief Kitsap.)
Good thing he wasn't named Mistard. :)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Jack Bohn
2020-05-24 11:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
According to local tour guides, the first settlers in Seattle wanted
to name their new settlement "New York," but fortunately the friends
of Chief Sealth overruled them, even if their spelling of the great
chief's name wasn't very accurate.
Shouldn't it have been "New New York," as in Futurama?
As someone who grew up in Bedford, MA -- not New Bedford, which is
older -- I am not troubled by the same name being used in multiple
places. I mean, Oregon named a major city Portland, not New Portland.
Like a second --- well, not to get personal, another Jack Bohn running around. (I can find some on the web. That reminds me that when my brother was a kid he found a person with his name -no relation- lived in our area. He found out by reading of the arrest in the paper.)

You know, there's the proposal of assigning people numbers instead of names, as the US somewhat accidentally has, but there is an obvious method of assigning cities numbers instead of names. The number even tells you something about the locale, if somewhat misleadingly: replace the old saw about Iceland/Greenland with "Mark Twain said, 'The coldest winter I ever experienced was one summer in 37, 47 North by 122, 25 West'" Of course, that takes away the joy people get from commemorating when, say, Wes became their Founding Father by naming the place he did as Wessex.
--
-Jack
D B Davis
2020-05-23 15:28:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government. Washington, DC is the
nation's capital, but New York City its its metropolis.
The Big Apple's suburbs and nearby cities that are at least
partly commuter towns and are in the same market for media
and transportation are considered to be part of the "metropolitan
area," even if they lie across state boundaries in Connecticut or
New Jersey. NYC is New York State's metropolis, also, but Albany
is the capital.
LW-E is right about Cleveland in the early SUPERMAN strips.
Columbus proper has outstripped Cleveland as Ohio's largest city,
but the "metropolitan area" (CSA) of Cleveland–Akron–Canton is
still larger than the CSA [combined statistical area] centered
on the Buckeye State's capital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_statistical_areas
Artist Joe Shuster used his boyhood home of Toronto as an
inspiration for how Metropolis looked.
The Seattle Metropolitans were the first US-based ice hockey
team to win the Stanley Cup!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Metropolitans
Note that one of their Cup tries was canceled by the
"Spanish" flu pandemic.
You shared "The Reign of The Superman" [1] with me a while ago. Before
you conceded LW-E's point, a read of "The Reign" promised to settle the
matter for me.
Alas, a search for "metro" in the story returns nothing. Nor does
"metro" catch my eyes when the story's skimmed (in case a UTF glitch or
something similar causes a search failure).
OTOH, a character named "Forrest Ackerman" does pop up. Although the
named didn't jump out at me during a previous read it now grabs my
attention due to Ackerman's involvement with Perry Rhodan.

FORREST ACKERMAN listened patiently to his City Editor.
"The Chief gave me this letter and recommended that I pass
it on to you. At first he thought it was just the work of a nut,
but in view of how things have been developing lately, he
suggested that I pass it on to you, and instruct you to look
into the matter. Well, that's your assignment. Keep your mouth
shut about it. If there's anything to it, we want an exclusive."
Ackerman accepted the proferred letter and glanced through
it. As he read, his interest quickened. He whistled. "Sounds
screwy." ...

Note.

[1] https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/06/1933s-reign-of-superman-first-superman.html



Danke,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Peter Trei
2020-05-23 20:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've never seen it mean anything other than 'big city'. Consider California. Can you justify not considerIng both San Francisco and Los Angeles areas to be Metropoli?

Pt
Kevrob
2020-05-24 03:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've never seen it mean anything
other than 'big city'.
Try searching on "metropolis of [state name.]"
Post by Peter Trei
Consider California. Can you justify not considerIng both San
Francisco and Los Angeles areas to be Metropoli?
LA is the metropolis of the state. Awhile back SF was the metropolis
of California, but now San Jose is larger, so it isn't even "the
metropolis of _Northern_ California."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population

San Diego is #2, by population.

The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland combined area has half the
population of LA-Long Beach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_statistical_areas

A city and surrounding localities can be a "metropolitan
area" without being a state's metropolis.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-05-24 04:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've never seen it mean anything
other than 'big city'.
Try searching on "metropolis of [state name.]"
Post by Peter Trei
Consider California. Can you justify not considerIng both San
Francisco and Los Angeles areas to be Metropoli?
LA is the metropolis of the state.
Following your recommended strategy above, I find, searching on
"Metropolis of California":

"California's major urban areas normally are thought of as two large
megalopolises . . ."

"The myth of a desert metropolis" referring to Los Angeles

"Metropolis Los Angeles", the name of an apartment complex

The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco.

Metropolis, an apartment complex in Irvine

Prime Metropolis Properties, a real estate agency in San Francisco.

Various images

"The Unbuilt Streets of California's Ghost Metropolis", referring to
California City.

"A new Metropolis is energizing California" referring to the
aforementions apartment complex.

"Southern California Metropolis", a book about Los Angeles written in
1963.

"Metropolis in California to become a pilot city for automated
driving" referring to San Francisco.

"San Francisco The growth of the Metropolis | Britannica".

So that's the first page of hits. It is not supporting your argument
that there is some kind of broad based agreement that Los Angeles is
"the metropolis of the state".
Post by Kevrob
Awhile back SF was the metropolis
of California, but now San Jose is larger, so it isn't even "the
metropolis of _Northern_ California."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population
San Diego is #2, by population.
The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland combined area has half the
population of LA-Long Beach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_statistical_areas
A city and surrounding localities can be a "metropolitan
area" without being a state's metropolis.
So? You seem to be making up your own definition of "metropolis" and
telling the rest of the world it should use your definition. The rest
of the world doesn't seem to give a damn what you think on this topic,
so your argument fails.
Peter Trei
2020-05-24 04:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've never seen it mean anything
other than 'big city'.
Try searching on "metropolis of [state name.]"
Post by Peter Trei
Consider California. Can you justify not considerIng both San
Francisco and Los Angeles areas to be Metropoli?
LA is the metropolis of the state. Awhile back SF was the metropolis
of California, but now San Jose is larger, so it isn't even "the
metropolis of _Northern_ California."
You're not addressing my question. What is the basis for you claim that
'metropolis' in the US applies only to the largest city in a given
administrative district?

I've never heard such a claim. SFBA does not cease to be a metropolis because
LA happens to be bigger. Give some sources for this claim, please.

pt
Kevrob
2020-05-24 08:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
In the USA, a "metropolis" is the largest city of the nation,
or of a particular state, regardless of whether it is the
the capital and seat of government.
Huh? Where do you get that from? I've never seen it mean anything
other than 'big city'.
Try searching on "metropolis of [state name.]"
Post by Peter Trei
Consider California. Can you justify not considerIng both San
Francisco and Los Angeles areas to be Metropoli?
LA is the metropolis of the state. Awhile back SF was the metropolis
of California, but now San Jose is larger, so it isn't even "the
metropolis of _Northern_ California."
You're not addressing my question. What is the basis for you claim that
'metropolis' in the US applies only to the largest city in a given
administrative district?
I've never heard such a claim. SFBA does not cease to be a metropolis
because LA happens to be bigger. Give some sources for this claim,
please.
pt
[quote]

me·trop·o·lis

n.
1. A major city, especially the chief city of a country or region:
Chicago, the metropolis of the Midwest.

{This is the sense in which I used the word.}


2. A city or an urban area regarded as the center of a specific
activity: a great cultural metropolis

3. Ecclesiastical The chief see of a metropolitan bishop.

4. The mother city or country of an overseas colony, especially
in ancient Greece

[/quote]

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=metropolis

"Metropolis" may have a wider, descriptivist meaning by now.
I learned the meaning I was using 4 or 5 decades ago. "The
metropolis" is the largest city, and not necessarily the capital.
any city of size could be "a metropolis," without being "THE
metropolis."

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-05-23 17:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 02:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
Think of Siegel & Shuster's Krypton as the product of a couple of
fanboys in love with the 1936 film written by Wells, "Things To Come."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_To_Come
They also named the town where "The Daily Star/Planet" was
published "Metropolis." The boys were in First Fandom,
after all.
Actually, they didn't, initially. In the earliest issues it was "the
metropolis," no capital M, and at least once it was specifically "the
metropolis of Cleveland." The editors in New York were the ones who
made it "Metropolis," a fictional everycity.
Indeed it's just a word that means "big city",
with some specific additional meanings.
Dictionary.com includes "the mother city or
parent state of a colony, especially of an
ancient Greek colony" - of course each ancient
Greek city was an independent nationstate so it
came to the same thing, and so far I've only
come across its Imperial sense referring to the
capital city e.g. London (England) in the
British Empire. Overwhelmingly it just means
"a city". Wikipedia thinks that "metropole" is
a word for the colonising nation instead of its
seat of government, but Dictionary.com doesn't
include it. (Do they take write-ins?)
Both words also exist in various countries,
not all English-speaking, with a specific
meaning in town or regional or ecclesiastical
government.
"metropole" sounds French to me, but I am probably confusing it with
"metropolitan France" -- which, at one point, included Algeria, IIRC.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-05-22 23:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism".
Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy
doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific
Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Tyranny, of course, is not a step forwards to the future, but a step backwards
towards barbarism.
It *is* true that a number of the tropes in 1930s science fiction that wound up
in the early Superman comics' depiction of Krypton, for example, very likely had
their origin in rosy visions of Stalin's Russia created by its propaganda at the
time.
This is a very complicated and suble question - whereas anti-science policies by
some political forces in the U.S. during a pandemic are a simple and
straightforward question.
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate, equality of
outcome is a fundamental logical consequence of equality of opportunity.
Therefore, if equality of outcome does not happen, something is lacking in
equality of opportunity.

Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 12:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate, equality of
outcome is a fundamental logical consequence of equality of opportunity.
Therefore, if equality of outcome does not happen, something is lacking in
equality of opportunity.
So you're saying that the kid with an IQ of 80 should have the same
outcome as the one with an IQ of 160 because they have the same
"inherent ability"?

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Post by Quadibloc
Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.
Which has what to do with requiring that smart people have the same
outcomes as stupid people?
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 14:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Which has what to do with requiring that smart people have the same
outcomes as stupid people?
Oh, no. I'm only talking about the weaker requirment that the aggregate of black
people shall have the same average distribution of ourcomes as the aggregate of
white people. Of course smart people within each group will have better outcomes
than stupid ones.

If some people object to that, then they are obstacles to my plan of harnessing
Earth's people to the conquest of space, the solution of the question of
Riemann's hypothesis, and so on and so forth, so they will be ignored.

John Savard
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 13:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate, equality of
outcome is a fundamental logical consequence of equality of opportunity.
Therefore, if equality of outcome does not happen, something is lacking in
equality of opportunity.
Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.
Lots of them already do, asshole. Maybe a higher percentage than
white people.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 14:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.
Lots of them already do, asshole. Maybe a higher percentage than
white people.
That is entirely possible given the sad condition of the educational system in
the United States at present. There must be some reason why so many white people
voted for Donald Trump.

I regret that my statement lent itself to an interpretation that I was
attempting to perpetuate stereotypes about black people like "natural rhythm"
and so on.

In the context of what I was replying to, though, my meaning was this:

Although it most likely is true, at a fundamental biological level, that the
inherent intelligence of black people is the same as that for white people,
looking at the current situation, there _is_ reason to suspect that due to a
number of factors, making the quality of schools, and the education provided in
schools, experienced by black people equal to that which is experienced by
whites won't automatically and immediately result in full equality of academic
performance by conventional metrics.

Part of that, of course, is that they will be coming from homes more likely to
be afflicted with poverty. But neither throwing money at those households nor
remedial instruction is likely to be a panacea either. (In some cases,
interventions in those households would be more relevant. However, even they
won't necessarily fix everything; you can't just turn a drug dealer into an
upstanding citizen through some magic Clockwork Orange style reprogramming.)

Another part of the issue will be cultural.

Natural rhythm may be racist crap, but because historically careers in STEM, in
the legal profession, in accounting, and so on have tended to be largely closed
to black people, while music has been open to them as an opportunity, means that
some proportion of intelligent young black people with aptitudes both musically
and in other directions would be more likely to opt for music because of this.

Hence my paraphrase of the famous quote to say that aiming at identical outcomes
*does* imply African-Americans would find themselves in a Procrustean bed from
the pursuit of such a thing too aggressively.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 15:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.
Lots of them already do, asshole. Maybe a higher percentage than
white people.
That is entirely possible given the sad condition of the educational system in
the United States at present. There must be some reason why so many white people
voted for Donald Trump.
I regret that my statement lent itself to an interpretation that I was
attempting to perpetuate stereotypes about black people like "natural rhythm"
and so on.
Although it most likely is true, at a fundamental biological level, that the
inherent intelligence of black people is the same as that for white people,
looking at the current situation, there _is_ reason to suspect that due to a
number of factors, making the quality of schools, and the education provided in
schools, experienced by black people equal to that which is experienced by
whites won't automatically and immediately result in full equality of academic
performance by conventional metrics.
Part of that, of course, is that they will be coming from homes more likely to
be afflicted with poverty. But neither throwing money at those households nor
remedial instruction is likely to be a panacea either. (In some cases,
interventions in those households would be more relevant. However, even they
won't necessarily fix everything; you can't just turn a drug dealer into an
upstanding citizen through some magic Clockwork Orange style reprogramming.)
Another part of the issue will be cultural.
Natural rhythm may be racist crap, but because historically careers in STEM, in
the legal profession, in accounting, and so on have tended to be largely closed
to black people, while music has been open to them as an opportunity, means that
some proportion of intelligent young black people with aptitudes both musically
and in other directions would be more likely to opt for music because of this.
Hence my paraphrase of the famous quote to say that aiming at identical outcomes
*does* imply African-Americans would find themselves in a Procrustean bed from
the pursuit of such a thing too aggressively.
And you are still being a fucking idiot. There are in every class
smart kids, average kids, and dumb kids. It doesn't matter what color
they are. There are smart black kids, average black kids, and dumb
black kids. There are also smart white kids, average white kids, and
dumb white kids. And smart yellow kids, and average yellow kids, and
dumb yellow kids. And the same for any other color you care to come
up with.

This does not alter the fact that an education system that forces the
smart kids and the dumb kids to achieve the same outcome is
short-changing everybody but the dumb kids.

When you try to make it about race instead of about educating every
kid to the limit of his capacity with the recognition that some have
more capacity than others you miss the point and again become part of
the problem.
h***@gmail.com
2020-05-23 15:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Comes the Revolution, black people will *like* mathematics and science.
Lots of them already do, asshole. Maybe a higher percentage than
white people.
That is entirely possible given the sad condition of the educational system in
the United States at present. There must be some reason why so many white people
voted for Donald Trump.
I regret that my statement lent itself to an interpretation that I was
attempting to perpetuate stereotypes about black people like "natural rhythm"
and so on.
Although it most likely is true, at a fundamental biological level, that the
inherent intelligence of black people is the same as that for white people,
looking at the current situation, there _is_ reason to suspect that due to a
number of factors, making the quality of schools, and the education provided in
schools, experienced by black people equal to that which is experienced by
whites won't automatically and immediately result in full equality of academic
performance by conventional metrics.
Part of that, of course, is that they will be coming from homes more likely to
be afflicted with poverty. But neither throwing money at those households nor
remedial instruction is likely to be a panacea either. (In some cases,
interventions in those households would be more relevant. However, even they
won't necessarily fix everything; you can't just turn a drug dealer into an
upstanding citizen through some magic Clockwork Orange style reprogramming.)
Another part of the issue will be cultural.
Natural rhythm may be racist crap, but because historically careers in STEM, in
the legal profession, in accounting, and so on have tended to be largely closed
to black people, while music has been open to them as an opportunity, means that
some proportion of intelligent young black people with aptitudes both musically
and in other directions would be more likely to opt for music because of this.
Hence my paraphrase of the famous quote to say that aiming at identical outcomes
*does* imply African-Americans would find themselves in a Procrustean bed from
the pursuit of such a thing too aggressively.
And you are still being a fucking idiot. There are in every class
smart kids, average kids, and dumb kids. It doesn't matter what color
they are. There are smart black kids, average black kids, and dumb
black kids. There are also smart white kids, average white kids, and
dumb white kids. And smart yellow kids, and average yellow kids, and
dumb yellow kids. And the same for any other color you care to come
up with.
This does not alter the fact that an education system that forces the
smart kids and the dumb kids to achieve the same outcome is
short-changing everybody but the dumb kids.
It doesn't
Post by J. Clarke
When you try to make it about race instead of about educating every
kid to the limit of his capacity with the recognition that some have
more capacity than others you miss the point and again become part of
the problem.
Yes, note that everybody gets a doctoral degree...
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-23 17:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
Dimensional Traveler
2020-05-23 19:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
My first thought is "Are they taking the same IQ tests?"

My second is "IQ tests only measure the ability to take IQ tests."
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
m***@sky.com
2020-05-24 04:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
My first thought is "Are they taking the same IQ tests?"
My second is "IQ tests only measure the ability to take IQ tests."
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
IQ tests were derived from the observation that scores on different academic subjects tend to be correlated, as if multiple reflections of the same hidden underlying characteristics. The score on an IQ test predicts academic performance. Hence the use (now politically unfashionable) of IQ tests to detect underlying ability in children living in poor circumstances and select them for an education that they (and the state) could profit from that they would not otherwise get.
h***@gmail.com
2020-05-24 05:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
My first thought is "Are they taking the same IQ tests?"
My second is "IQ tests only measure the ability to take IQ tests."
IQ tests were derived from the observation that scores on different academic subjects tend to be correlated, as if multiple reflections of the same hidden underlying characteristics. The score on an IQ test predicts academic performance. Hence the use (now politically unfashionable) of IQ tests to detect underlying ability in children living in poor circumstances and select them for an education that they (and the state) could profit from that they would not otherwise get.
The score on IQ tests may predict academic performance to a degree but the score in IQ tests is highly correlated to what you've been exposed to in your education/life to the stage you take the IQ test

Having been taught maths better boosts performance in parts of an IQ test, so does having been exposed to books (number of books in your home is a huge predictor of academic success as well)

IQ tests are also culturally variable, a friend of mine who was doing a Psychology/maths degree was in a class that did an IQ test for people from Papua New Guinea. They did not score well...

Funnily enough IQ tests created in the UK showed that Englishmen were smarter than those stupid foreigners...
David Johnston
2020-05-23 20:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
How was that fact determined?
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-23 22:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
How was that fact determined?
I grabbed it off Wikipedia (I was lazy, I have to admit),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence .
David Johnston
2020-05-23 23:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 May 2020 00:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
One of the most basic steps needed to move America towards both the future and
to renewed greatness is to restore the health of the American educational
system, so as to better approach the ideal of "Jeffersonian democracy".
But that would do away with equality of outcome, and we can't have
that.
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
How was that fact determined?
I grabbed it off Wikipedia (I was lazy, I have to admit),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence .
Lotta guesswork there.
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 00:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
There is a possible non-genetic explanation for why Chinese people and other
East Asians living in the United States do so well academically compared to
others.

Historically, in China (which deeply influenced the cultures of other East Asian
countries) spending lots of time studying hard in school to master the
character-based writing system was very important, as it gave one a chance of
passing the Civil Service Examinations. This was a road out of poverty.

So studying hard in school is a way to be *more Chinese*.

Compare that to the situation of a child from some disadvantaged ethnic groups,
to whom studying in school is knuckling under to The Man. That kind of emotional
basis will affect how well one studies.

Another ethnic group well known for superior academic success happens to have a
religious ceremony at the age of 13, where a boy becomes a man... by being able
to read a passage of Scripture in its original language without error. Once
again, sitting behind a desk and studying is an affirmation of one's identity
instead of a contradiction to it.

John Savard
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-24 09:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
There is a possible non-genetic explanation
"There is a possible non-genetic explanation" is a long step from
"basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate."

Are you currently engaging in something beyond permissible debate?
Or is your position that nobody is allowed to reply to you, because
any reply would move into the realm of "beyond permissible debate"?
That position certainly makes for one-sided debates, and sounds
a lot like an absolutist/religious dogma.
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 12:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
There is a possible non-genetic explanation
"There is a possible non-genetic explanation" is a long step from
"basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate."
Are you currently engaging in something beyond permissible debate?
Or is your position that nobody is allowed to reply to you, because
any reply would move into the realm of "beyond permissible debate"?
That position certainly makes for one-sided debates, and sounds
a lot like an absolutist/religious dogma.
Someone once did an IQ test where black Americans showed to be 11 points below
white Americans.

There was a big book published that talked about the role of intelligence in
American life. It made a lot of interesting points that might have been food for
a national discussion. Unfortunately, at one point in the book, this particular
study was accepted uncritically as evidence that black people weren't as smart
as white people.

So everyone focused on that, and the book, at first attracting interest, was
condemned as beyond the pale.

So I was not trying to decree something, I was describing a phenomenon that
actually exists which I have observed.

Or, to explain explicitly:

Since it is generally and fundamentally accepted that human beings have rights,
and the animals we eat for our supper don't, and it is also thought that the
_reason_ for this is because humans have a level of intelligence that animals
don't, characterizing black people as less intelligent has historically been a
way of *denying their humanity*.

Assume that's a bad thing, but the basic underlying attitudes behind the
situation cannot be changed (maybe because they're fundamentally right, maybe
because they're not accessible to be changed, whatever)...

and the flawed conclusion emerges that to achieve equality for blacks, one will
have to coerce them into living up to white people's expectations.

My mordant satire keeps getting missed because it's so hard to see sarcasm on
the Internet...

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-24 14:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 24 May 2020 05:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Quadibloc
Given equality of inherent ability, which is a characteristic of the different
races basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate,
So why does, for example, China have a higher average IQ than
Germany? (Being German and not a Chinese supremacist, I think I
can safely state this fact.)
There is a possible non-genetic explanation
"There is a possible non-genetic explanation" is a long step from
"basically known to be a fact and beyond permissible debate."
Are you currently engaging in something beyond permissible debate?
Or is your position that nobody is allowed to reply to you, because
any reply would move into the realm of "beyond permissible debate"?
That position certainly makes for one-sided debates, and sounds
a lot like an absolutist/religious dogma.
Someone once did an IQ test where black Americans showed to be 11 points below
white Americans.
There was a big book published that talked about the role of intelligence in
American life. It made a lot of interesting points that might have been food for
a national discussion. Unfortunately, at one point in the book, this particular
study was accepted uncritically as evidence that black people weren't as smart
as white people.
So everyone focused on that, and the book, at first attracting interest, was
condemned as beyond the pale.
So I was not trying to decree something, I was describing a phenomenon that
actually exists which I have observed.
Since it is generally and fundamentally accepted that human beings have rights,
and the animals we eat for our supper don't, and it is also thought that the
_reason_ for this is because humans have a level of intelligence that animals
don't, characterizing black people as less intelligent has historically been a
way of *denying their humanity*.
Assume that's a bad thing, but the basic underlying attitudes behind the
situation cannot be changed (maybe because they're fundamentally right, maybe
because they're not accessible to be changed, whatever)...
and the flawed conclusion emerges that to achieve equality for blacks, one will
have to coerce them into living up to white people's expectations.
And you're still stuck on race.

A smart black kid who is educated to the capacity limit of a dumb
black kid has been short-changed by the system. That's the problem,
in order to secure equality of outcome we are teaching a leve where
the dumbest kid in the school can get straight As.
Post by Quadibloc
My mordant satire keeps getting missed because it's so hard to see sarcasm on
the Internet...
John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-22 09:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?

And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.

So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
Quadibloc
2020-05-22 10:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.

Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?

In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.

My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability. This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.

When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.

John Savard

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-05-22 17:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
There are minor, but persistent, indications that the local
authorities sometimes try to act independently of the Central
Authority. Which is /not/ the way it is supposed to work.

China has a long history of periodically breaking up into several
states, which then fight each other. Granted, the next time they will
probably be "People's States" rather than "Kingdoms", but a next time
would be entirely consistent with their history.
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability. This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.
When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.
I'm sure The Donald would approve.

After all, he's always claimed that the other nations in NATO aren't
spending enough on defense.

And, anyway, non-proliferation hasn't worked and can be expected to
continue to not work. Can't put /that/ genie back into the bottle!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-05-22 17:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability. This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.
When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.
I'm sure The Donald would approve.
After all, he's always claimed that the other nations in NATO aren't
spending enough on defense.
And, anyway, non-proliferation hasn't worked and can be expected to
continue to not work. Can't put /that/ genie back into the bottle!
I remember reading a news item about how the Obama administration pressured
Taiwan and/or South Korea into giving up nuclear ambitions. Now's their chance,
then.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-22 23:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Note that they collectively represent about 1.2 percent of the
population of China and it is not clear that all of them are unhappy.
Post by Quadibloc
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
It provides increasing quantities of consumer goods for its people.
Whether that is "useful or desirable" depends on how you feel about
consumer goods.
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
If "all the free countries" that betweent them have an economy
somewhat larger than that of the US and massively larger than that of
Russia are unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves,
screw 'em.
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability.
Good luck getting France to cooperate with Britain. Concorde was a
miracle unlikely to be repeated.

And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
Post by Quadibloc
This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.
Why are you so afraid of Russia? It is 2020, not 1960.
Post by Quadibloc
When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.
And it is. It's just that people like you who have not realized that
the Cold War is over have the wrong priorities.
Chrysi Cat
2020-05-23 02:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Note that they collectively represent about 1.2 percent of the
population of China and it is not clear that all of them are unhappy.
Post by Quadibloc
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
It provides increasing quantities of consumer goods for its people.
Whether that is "useful or desirable" depends on how you feel about
consumer goods.
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
If "all the free countries" that betweent them have an economy
somewhat larger than that of the US and massively larger than that of
Russia are unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves,
screw 'em.
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability.
Good luck getting France to cooperate with Britain. Concorde was a
miracle unlikely to be repeated.
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
Post by Quadibloc
This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.
Why are you so afraid of Russia? It is 2020, not 1960.
Post by Quadibloc
When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.
And it is. It's just that people like you who have not realized that
the Cold War is over have the wrong priorities.
Because /Russia/ wants it back on, or for us to retroactively grant it
victory in terms of everything but restoring the Communist Party. They
demand that the entire world return LGBT to the status of "in the closet
and persecution ensues whenever even actually-straight people do
anything that earns suspicion of their being gay", the way things were
worldwide until the 1920s and reverted to between 1933 and '89, for one
thing.

And between them and Communist China, they insist on making the world
safe for authoritarianism and making clear once and for all that liberal
democracy is a failed idea and a sin against their god.

The only difference is, /this/ time the number of people who are willing
to leave ultimate authority to Moscow is slightly greater than it was in
1931-45 before the first Cold War ensued.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 03:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Note that they collectively represent about 1.2 percent of the
population of China and it is not clear that all of them are unhappy.
Post by Quadibloc
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
It provides increasing quantities of consumer goods for its people.
Whether that is "useful or desirable" depends on how you feel about
consumer goods.
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
If "all the free countries" that betweent them have an economy
somewhat larger than that of the US and massively larger than that of
Russia are unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves,
screw 'em.
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability.
Good luck getting France to cooperate with Britain. Concorde was a
miracle unlikely to be repeated.
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
Post by Quadibloc
This would introduce needed redundancy into the defenses of
the Free World, and ensure that no opportunity for adventure is presented to
Russia or China should any further deterioration in the functioning of the
United States, or its relationships with its allies, take place.
Why are you so afraid of Russia? It is 2020, not 1960.
Post by Quadibloc
When survival is at issue, attention should be focused on dealing with the
issues having the greatest seriousness.
And it is. It's just that people like you who have not realized that
the Cold War is over have the wrong priorities.
Because /Russia/ wants it back on, or for us to retroactively grant it
victory in terms of everything but restoring the Communist Party. They
demand that the entire world return LGBT to the status of "in the closet
and persecution ensues whenever even actually-straight people do
anything that earns suspicion of their being gay", the way things were
worldwide until the 1920s and reverted to between 1933 and '89, for one
thing.
Please provide a link to the text of this demand.
Post by Chrysi Cat
And between them and Communist China, they insist on making the world
safe for authoritarianism and making clear once and for all that liberal
democracy is a failed idea and a sin against their god.
They don't have a god, and if they are in fact making the world safe
for authoritarianism that is pretty good evidence that democracy _has_
failed.
Post by Chrysi Cat
The only difference is, /this/ time the number of people who are willing
to leave ultimate authority to Moscow is slightly greater than it was in
1931-45 before the first Cold War ensued.
Please provide your census.
m***@sky.com
2020-05-23 04:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Note that they collectively represent about 1.2 percent of the
population of China and it is not clear that all of them are unhappy.
Post by Quadibloc
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
It provides increasing quantities of consumer goods for its people.
Whether that is "useful or desirable" depends on how you feel about
consumer goods.
This has been the implicit bargain so far. There have always been questions about what happens when Chinese development gets out of catch-up mode and becomes subject to recessions. It will be interesting to see what happens if it becomes clear that Chinese authoritarianism - by covering up the epidemic - has killed large numbers of _chinese_. (My guess is that Xi will be replaced and made a scapegoat as soon as it is clear that they really have cleared Covid-19).
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
If "all the free countries" that betweent them have an economy
somewhat larger than that of the US and massively larger than that of
Russia are unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves,
screw 'em.
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability.
Good luck getting France to cooperate with Britain. Concorde was a
miracle unlikely to be repeated.
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
Both France and Britain have maintained the classic second strike nuclear deterrent for years using ballistic missile submarines, with one armed submarine always at sea - it takes up a good deal of their defense spending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion. There has been some discussion of the fact that UK subs use the same pool of missiles as the USA, but I find plausible the official position that they can be launched at the whim of Boris Johnson regardless of any steadying influence President Trump may wish to exert.
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 04:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 May 2020 03:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
Does China produce happiness for (nearly) all its people? Checking the Tibetans
and the Uighurs. No.
Note that they collectively represent about 1.2 percent of the
population of China and it is not clear that all of them are unhappy.
Post by Quadibloc
Does China "work"? That depends what you mean by working. It *functions*, and it
is not in imminent danger of collapse. But does it serve a useful or desirable
purpose?
It provides increasing quantities of consumer goods for its people.
Whether that is "useful or desirable" depends on how you feel about
consumer goods.
This has been the implicit bargain so far. There have always been questions about what happens when Chinese development gets out of catch-up mode and becomes subject to recessions. It will be interesting to see what happens if it becomes clear that Chinese authoritarianism - by covering up the epidemic - has killed large numbers of _chinese_. (My guess is that Xi will be replaced and made a scapegoat as soon as it is clear that they really have cleared Covid-19).
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
In any case, I'm much more worried about how, because of Trump getting elected,
America, the heart of the free world - on which all the free countries'
independence from Russia and/or China absolutely depends - the U. S. of A might
cease to work.
If "all the free countries" that betweent them have an economy
somewhat larger than that of the US and massively larger than that of
Russia are unwilling to spend what it takes to defend themselves,
screw 'em.
Post by Quadibloc
My *solution*, though, is one that is unpopular these days. I would recommend as
a response that both Canada and Australia begin to join Britain and France by
developing a full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent, including a full second-
strike capability.
Good luck getting France to cooperate with Britain. Concorde was a
miracle unlikely to be repeated.
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
Both France and Britain have maintained the classic second strike nuclear deterrent for years using ballistic missile submarines, with one armed submarine always at sea - it takes up a good deal of their defense spending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion. There has been some discussion of the fact that UK subs use the same pool of missiles as the USA, but I find plausible the official position that they can be launched at the whim of Boris Johnson regardless of any steadying influence President Trump may wish to exert.
So why do they need more?
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.

Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 12:12:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.
You don't seem to grasp that China has a problem with overpopulation.
Anything that reduces the population without the government having to
sterilize or kill people could be viewed by the government as
beneficial.
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 14:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 08:12:42 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.
You don't seem to grasp that China has a problem with overpopulation.
Anything that reduces the population without the government having to
sterilize or kill people could be viewed by the government as
beneficial.
Could be, but generally isn't. They no longer have as much of a
problem with overpopulation as you seem to think.

The major reason overpopulation was a problem prior to the 1990s was
that they didn't have the capacity to feed everyone. Now they do.

They don't want anything that's going to kill off workers. Now, if
COVID-19 ONLY killed unproductive people, yeah, they still have a
serious surplus there -- the one-child policy combined wth improved
food and health care (not that their health care is all that great)
means their demographics are out of whack, with far too many retirees,
just like most developed countries nowadays. They dropped the
one-child policy because there's actually a labor SHORTAGE (by Chinese
standards) looming a decade or so down the road. And unfortunately,
while COVID-19 hits the elderly hardest, it's not THAT selective.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Well, that gets into the whole thing of humans being really bad at
risk assessment...
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 14:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:07:15 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 23 May 2020 08:12:42 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.
You don't seem to grasp that China has a problem with overpopulation.
Anything that reduces the population without the government having to
sterilize or kill people could be viewed by the government as
beneficial.
Could be, but generally isn't. They no longer have as much of a
problem with overpopulation as you seem to think.
They still have the world's largest population but not the world's
largest land area, so the notion that they aren't overpopulated is
debatable. In any case neither of us is privy to the inner workings
of the Chinese politburo.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
The major reason overpopulation was a problem prior to the 1990s was
that they didn't have the capacity to feed everyone. Now they do.
Can they do it without imports?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They don't want anything that's going to kill off workers. Now, if
COVID-19 ONLY killed unproductive people, yeah, they still have a
serious surplus there -- the one-child policy combined wth improved
food and health care (not that their health care is all that great)
means their demographics are out of whack, with far too many retirees,
just like most developed countries nowadays.
So what percentage of the Chinese population is retirees and why are
they being allowed/forced to retire and how does this compare to 20,
30, and 40 years ago?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They dropped the
one-child policy because there's actually a labor SHORTAGE (by Chinese
standards) looming a decade or so down the road. And unfortunately,
while COVID-19 hits the elderly hardest, it's not THAT selective.
What constitutes a labor shortage in China and where did you obtain
transcripts of the meetings in which this was decided? Or are you
secretly a member of the inner circle of the Chinese government?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Well, that gets into the whole thing of humans being really bad at
risk assessment...
So why are Chinese people better at it than anyone else?

The Gulag did not bring down Stalin, why does anyone think the Gulag
will bring down China?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2020-05-23 21:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 10:54:52 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:07:15 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 23 May 2020 08:12:42 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.
You don't seem to grasp that China has a problem with overpopulation.
Anything that reduces the population without the government having to
sterilize or kill people could be viewed by the government as
beneficial.
Could be, but generally isn't. They no longer have as much of a
problem with overpopulation as you seem to think.
They still have the world's largest population but not the world's
largest land area, so the notion that they aren't overpopulated is
debatable. In any case neither of us is privy to the inner workings
of the Chinese politburo.
True, but I do have friends and family in China, including a party
member or two.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
The major reason overpopulation was a problem prior to the 1990s was
that they didn't have the capacity to feed everyone. Now they do.
Can they do it without imports?
I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. Does it matter, since they
have easy access to lots of imports?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They don't want anything that's going to kill off workers. Now, if
COVID-19 ONLY killed unproductive people, yeah, they still have a
serious surplus there -- the one-child policy combined wth improved
food and health care (not that their health care is all that great)
means their demographics are out of whack, with far too many retirees,
just like most developed countries nowadays.
So what percentage of the Chinese population is retirees and why are
they being allowed/forced to retire and how does this compare to 20,
30, and 40 years ago?
We could probably look that up.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They dropped the
one-child policy because there's actually a labor SHORTAGE (by Chinese
standards) looming a decade or so down the road. And unfortunately,
while COVID-19 hits the elderly hardest, it's not THAT selective.
What constitutes a labor shortage in China and where did you obtain
transcripts of the meetings in which this was decided? Or are you
secretly a member of the inner circle of the Chinese government?
I can read.

It's a labor shortage if there aren't enough strong young men willing
to do hard, debilitating labor for lousy pay.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Well, that gets into the whole thing of humans being really bad at
risk assessment...
So why are Chinese people better at it than anyone else?
They aren't. But they aren't worse at it, either.
Post by J. Clarke
The Gulag did not bring down Stalin, why does anyone think the Gulag
will bring down China?
I have no idea. Does anyone actually think that? (Quaddie doesn't
count; what he does isn't "thinking.") I don't think anything is
going to bring down the Chinese government any time soon.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 22:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 14:12:37 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 23 May 2020 10:54:52 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:07:15 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 23 May 2020 08:12:42 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Clear to who? The people know what the government wants them to know.
And what leads you to believe that killing large numbers of Chinese is
viewed as a bad thing in China?
That would seem to be a natural conclusion, given that the people inhabiting China
are mostly Chinese, so the people in it viewing things are bad or good are the
ones at risk of being killed.
You don't seem to grasp that China has a problem with overpopulation.
Anything that reduces the population without the government having to
sterilize or kill people could be viewed by the government as
beneficial.
Could be, but generally isn't. They no longer have as much of a
problem with overpopulation as you seem to think.
They still have the world's largest population but not the world's
largest land area, so the notion that they aren't overpopulated is
debatable. In any case neither of us is privy to the inner workings
of the Chinese politburo.
True, but I do have friends and family in China, including a party
member or two.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
The major reason overpopulation was a problem prior to the 1990s was
that they didn't have the capacity to feed everyone. Now they do.
Can they do it without imports?
I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. Does it matter, since they
have easy access to lots of imports?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They don't want anything that's going to kill off workers. Now, if
COVID-19 ONLY killed unproductive people, yeah, they still have a
serious surplus there -- the one-child policy combined wth improved
food and health care (not that their health care is all that great)
means their demographics are out of whack, with far too many retirees,
just like most developed countries nowadays.
So what percentage of the Chinese population is retirees and why are
they being allowed/forced to retire and how does this compare to 20,
30, and 40 years ago?
We could probably look that up.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
They dropped the
one-child policy because there's actually a labor SHORTAGE (by Chinese
standards) looming a decade or so down the road. And unfortunately,
while COVID-19 hits the elderly hardest, it's not THAT selective.
What constitutes a labor shortage in China and where did you obtain
transcripts of the meetings in which this was decided? Or are you
secretly a member of the inner circle of the Chinese government?
I can read.
It's a labor shortage if there aren't enough strong young men willing
to do hard, debilitating labor for lousy pay.
This is China. If the government wants you to do hard debilitating
labor for lousy pay you do have the option of accepting beatings and
starvation instead. Most people, including elderly college
professors, do the debilitating labor. Remember the Cultural
Revolution?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Well, that gets into the whole thing of humans being really bad at
risk assessment...
So why are Chinese people better at it than anyone else?
They aren't. But they aren't worse at it, either.
Post by J. Clarke
The Gulag did not bring down Stalin, why does anyone think the Gulag
will bring down China?
I have no idea. Does anyone actually think that? (Quaddie doesn't
count; what he does isn't "thinking.") I don't think anything is
going to bring down the Chinese government any time soon.
So there you go, the Chinese government has no reason to care whether
people die of COVID-19.
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 00:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The Gulag did not bring down Stalin, why does anyone think the Gulag
will bring down China?
The Gulag propped up Stalin. But I don't think that it made the Russian people
_happier_ to have Stalin in charge.

Repression has the positive effect, from the viewpoint of the rulers, of
preventing discontent from being effective in overthrowing the goverment, but it
also has the negative effect of increasing discontent.

A lot of time passed between Stalin and Gorbachev. But Gorbachev would have
created a new beginning for Communism in Russia, and a long future for it, if it
hadn't been for all that discontent stored up from his predecessors.

So I think that, sadly for the Chinese people, the Communist regime there is
going to be around for a considerable time to come. When, if ever, those who are
dissatisfied with it will have the opportunity to do something about it is not
clear at present.

When I say no to the question "Does the Chinese system work", I don't mean it is
likely to fall on its face any time soon. I mean that the Chinese regime is a
blot on the face of the Earth that does not serve a useful purpose; it may
function, but its functioning is not beneficial. The organism Yersinia pestis
functions as an organism quite effectively, but that function is destructive,
not constructive.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-24 01:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 17:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The Gulag did not bring down Stalin, why does anyone think the Gulag
will bring down China?
The Gulag propped up Stalin. But I don't think that it made the Russian people
_happier_ to have Stalin in charge.
You make the same mistake as every other do-gooder when discussion
totalitarian societies. You assume that the people in charge _care_
whether their subjects are happy. If they are not so unhappy that
they drag down the dictator then the dictator is satisifed.
Post by Quadibloc
Repression has the positive effect, from the viewpoint of the rulers, of
preventing discontent from being effective in overthrowing the goverment, but it
also has the negative effect of increasing discontent.
Which is a balancing act.
Post by Quadibloc
A lot of time passed between Stalin and Gorbachev. But Gorbachev would have
created a new beginning for Communism in Russia, and a long future for it, if it
hadn't been for all that discontent stored up from his predecessors.
The problem with Russia is Russianism. And Russianism seems to be
alive and well in that society. They traded the Czar for a Czar with
a different title and now they have another Czar with yet another
title. But the system never really changed that much.
Post by Quadibloc
So I think that, sadly for the Chinese people, the Communist regime there is
going to be around for a considerable time to come. When, if ever, those who are
dissatisfied with it will have the opportunity to do something about it is not
clear at present.
They haven't managed to do anything about it in something like 5,000
years of recorded history so why should they change now?
Post by Quadibloc
When I say no to the question "Does the Chinese system work", I don't mean it is
likely to fall on its face any time soon. I mean that the Chinese regime is a
blot on the face of the Earth that does not serve a useful purpose;
Of course it does. It lets the dictators of China live easy lives at
the expense of the workers. That you disagree with the dictators on
the utility of this outcome is a matter of crashing indifference to
the dictators, unless you come to China and try to do something about
it, at which time your life will likely become much more exciting.
Post by Quadibloc
it may
function, but its functioning is not beneficial. The organism Yersinia pestis
functions as an organism quite effectively, but that function is destructive,
not constructive.
Destructive for who? Not for Yersinia pestis.
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 12:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You make the same mistake as every other do-gooder when discussion
totalitarian societies. You assume that the people in charge _care_
whether their subjects are happy. If they are not so unhappy that
they drag down the dictator then the dictator is satisifed.
No, you're making the mistake of thinking that *I* care whether the dictator is
happy. I don't. I care whether their subjects are happy.

Thus, a system doesn't work when it doesn't produce what *I* want it to.

If you don't understand this yet, well, I will just have to finish inventing my
amazing destructo-ray for the conquest of Earth! :)

Or, to put it in simpler terms, we're talking about two different things. You're
trying to look at things objectively in morally-neutral terms. I think that such
a viewpoint is fundamentally irrelevant to the goals of the human race.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 12:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That you disagree with the dictators on
the utility of this outcome is a matter of crashing indifference to
the dictators, unless you come to China and try to do something about
it, at which time your life will likely become much more exciting.
Surely by now you should realize that I don't plan to do this just yet, not until
I'm in a position to make *their* lives more exciting instead.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 14:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Non sequitur. Point a gun at an anti-vaxxer and see what happens, well, aside
from law enforcement intervention, so keep that to the gedanken experiment
stage.

Or, more specifically and directly:

The fact that survival mechanisms can _malfunction_ under certain circumstances
is not proof of their nonexistence.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 14:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings are living organisms. If I try to swat a fly, it will move away if
it can. The impulse to continue living is pretty much a universal among living
organisms.
If that were so there would be no need for police to enforce "social
distancing" and there would be no public resistance to vaccines.
Non sequitur. Point a gun at an anti-vaxxer and see what happens, well, aside
from law enforcement intervention, so keep that to the gedanken experiment
stage.
Likely he'll draw down on you and blow your brains out.
Post by Quadibloc
The fact that survival mechanisms can _malfunction_ under certain circumstances
is not proof of their nonexistence.
That is is your opinion that the people of China will rebel if some of
them die is not evidence that it will happen. Especially when the
deaths are from a disease and not direct government action. Remember
that the Chinese government does kill anybody it finds inconvenient.
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
The United States only puts its *first* strike capability in missile silos in
rural areas.

Britain and France would put their second-strike capability the same place the
United States puts its second-strike capability: in nuclear-armed submarines
patrolling the world's oceans.

I thought this was a basic fact known to every American school child.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 12:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
The United States only puts its *first* strike capability in missile silos in
rural areas.
If that is first strike capablity then why all the expense of hardened
silos designed to survive a nuclear attack?
Post by Quadibloc
Britain and France would put their second-strike capability the same place the
United States puts its second-strike capability: in nuclear-armed submarines
patrolling the world's oceans.
You don't really seem to understand the meaning of "second strike".
Post by Quadibloc
I thought this was a basic fact known to every American school child.
Maybe it is known to every school child. School children are taught
many things that are wrong. During the Cold War second strike
capability was a triad--missiles on land in hardened silos, able to
survive a nuclear attack, missiles on submarines that were effectively
undetectable, and bombs on aircraft that were constantly airborne and
could move hundreds of miles in the time it took for a first strike to
arrive.
Major Oz
2020-05-23 19:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And where are Britain and France going to put this second-strike
capability? It's going to be a target if it is ever needed so
whatever is on top of it is going to be destroyed. In the US that's
mostly wheat. In Britain and France are there equivalent wide-open
spaces?
The United States only puts its *first* strike capability in missile silos in
rural areas.
Does that, in your mind, mean that the missiles in silos are first strike weapons.

(you haven't yet said what YOU mean by first strike)
Post by Quadibloc
Britain and France would put their second-strike capability the same place the
United States puts its second-strike capability: in nuclear-armed submarines
patrolling the world's oceans.
I thought this was a basic fact known to every American school child.
John Savard
Our strategies are not well known to our school children

(nor, apparently, to Canadians)
Quadibloc
2020-05-24 00:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Major Oz
Does that, in your mind, mean that the missiles in silos are first strike weapons.
Missiles in silos have long range and high accuracy, but their locations are
known to the enemy.

Thus, even when they are not used to _start_ a thermonuclear war (the classical
meaning of first strike) they have to be launched quickly after the enemy has
started launching his missiles... at the enemy silos that haven't launched their
missiles yet.

So these missiles are _counterforce_ weapons.

Missiles in submarines, on the other hand, are smaller, and have a lower
accuracy. Those are the ones that are used for devastating the *cities* of the
enemy after one's own country has been devastated by enemy attack.

So those missiles are _countervalue_ weapons.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-24 01:54:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Major Oz
Does that, in your mind, mean that the missiles in silos are first strike weapons.
Missiles in silos have long range and high accuracy, but their locations are
known to the enemy.
Thus, even when they are not used to _start_ a thermonuclear war (the classical
meaning of first strike) they have to be launched quickly after the enemy has
started launching his missiles... at the enemy silos that haven't launched their
missiles yet.
If they are not able to survive a first strike then what is the point
of putting them in hardened underground silos in the first place?
Post by Quadibloc
So these missiles are _counterforce_ weapons.
Can they in fact hit hardened silos with sufficient force and accuracy
to reliably destroy them? If not then they are not counterforce.
Post by Quadibloc
Missiles in submarines, on the other hand, are smaller, and have a lower
accuracy. Those are the ones that are used for devastating the *cities* of the
enemy after one's own country has been devastated by enemy attack.
Earth to Quadi, there is something called "GPS". Google it.
Post by Quadibloc
So those missiles are _countervalue_ weapons.
Except that for the past 35 years they have been able to hit targets
with as much accuracy and force as land-based missiles, so your
argument is full of crap, as usual.
Major Oz
2020-05-24 03:12:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 May 2020 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Major Oz
Does that, in your mind, mean that the missiles in silos are first strike weapons.
Missiles in silos have long range and high accuracy, but their locations are
known to the enemy.
Thus, even when they are not used to _start_ a thermonuclear war (the classical
meaning of first strike) they have to be launched quickly after the enemy has
started launching his missiles... at the enemy silos that haven't launched their
missiles yet.
If they are not able to survive a first strike then what is the point
of putting them in hardened underground silos in the first place?
Post by Quadibloc
So these missiles are _counterforce_ weapons.
Can they in fact hit hardened silos with sufficient force and accuracy
to reliably destroy them? If not then they are not counterforce.
Post by Quadibloc
Missiles in submarines, on the other hand, are smaller, and have a lower
accuracy. Those are the ones that are used for devastating the *cities* of the
enemy after one's own country has been devastated by enemy attack.
Earth to Quadi, there is something called "GPS". Google it.
Post by Quadibloc
So those missiles are _countervalue_ weapons.
Except that for the past 35 years they have been able to hit targets
with as much accuracy and force as land-based missiles, so your
argument is full of crap, as usual.
.....dunno 'bout the "usual", but this one is.

oz, former member of JSTPS (google it)
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-24 10:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If they are not able to survive a first strike then what is the point
of putting them in hardened underground silos in the first place?
If a tank is not able to survive a hit by an anti-tank weapon then
what is the point of putting armor on it?
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Why are you so afraid of Russia? It is 2020, not 1960.
In 2008, troops from the "new" Russia invaded Georgia, a sovereign state with a
democratic government. Subsequently, Russia has also committed acts of
aggression against the Ukraine. I can't help it if you don't read the newspaper.
Post by J. Clarke
And it is. It's just that people like you who have not realized that
the Cold War is over have the wrong priorities.
The Cold War with Russia ended under Gorbachev, even before Yeltsin took power.
A new one began, though, when Vladimir Putin showed his true colors. And the
Cold War with China never ended.

When *all* the world's nuclear-armed states are democracies allied with the
United States, *then* the danger of nuclear war will be ended forever, and not
before.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 12:25:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why are you so afraid of Russia? It is 2020, not 1960.
In 2008, troops from the "new" Russia invaded Georgia, a sovereign state with a
democratic government. Subsequently, Russia has also committed acts of
aggression against the Ukraine. I can't help it if you don't read the newspaper.
You don't live in Georgia, or Ukraine. Why is Russia a threat to
_you_?
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And it is. It's just that people like you who have not realized that
the Cold War is over have the wrong priorities.
The Cold War with Russia ended under Gorbachev, even before Yeltsin took power.
A new one began, though, when Vladimir Putin showed his true colors. And the
Cold War with China never ended.
I don't recall Putin threatening to bury anybody. He's dangerous to a
few countries that have a border with Russia. That doesn't mean that
invading Canada is even remotely likely.

As for China, why would China start a war with their biggest market?
Post by Quadibloc
When *all* the world's nuclear-armed states are democracies allied with the
United States, *then* the danger of nuclear war will be ended forever, and not
before.
You and your childlike faith in the benevolence of voters.
m***@sky.com
2020-05-22 17:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.
So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
I am confident that China does not work, in the sense that the more we hear about it, the less attractive it looks.

I do not think there is enough evidence yet to tell if it can work, in the sense that it can generate enough economic and military progress to challenge or even overtake less authoritarian societies. Whether democracy and freedom will always produce enough progress and prosperity to outpace authoritarian states is a great question of our time, which I would like to see worked out in Science Fiction. This is especially interesting when (e.g. the Draka) the authoritarian state is also stealing technology from the free states.

FWIW there have been a few examples of democracies allowing all comers to become politicians and surviving it. I think there are a few communist mayors in Europe. The UK had an opposition leader (Jeremy Corbyn) with a pretty consistent track record of support for terrorists (now thankfully replaced by Keir Starmer). After the amnesties at the close of the troubles, politicians in N.Ireland have sat down and worked with ex-terrorists who were previously trying to kill them.
J. Clarke
2020-05-22 23:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.
So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
I am confident that China does not work, in the sense that the more we hear about it, the less attractive it looks.
I do not think there is enough evidence yet to tell if it can work, in the sense that it can generate enough economic and military progress to challenge or even overtake less authoritarian societies. Whether democracy and freedom will always produce enough progress and prosperity to outpace authoritarian states is a great question of our time, which I would like to see worked out in Science Fiction. This is especially interesting when (e.g. the Draka) the authoritarian state is also stealing technology from the free states.
The Chinese aren't stealing technology, business people are in a race
to see who can _give_ them the most. As to economic progress, it
seems to have escaped your notice that China has gone from the 10th
largest economy to the second largest in less than 30 years
Post by m***@sky.com
FWIW there have been a few examples of democracies allowing all comers to become politicians and surviving it. I think there are a few communist mayors in Europe. The UK had an opposition leader (Jeremy Corbyn) with a pretty consistent track record of support for terrorists (now thankfully replaced by Keir Starmer). After the amnesties at the close of the troubles, politicians in N.Ireland have sat down and worked with ex-terrorists who were previously trying to kill them.
Peter Trei
2020-05-23 01:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.
So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
I am confident that China does not work, in the sense that the more we hear about it, the less attractive it looks.
I do not think there is enough evidence yet to tell if it can work, in the sense that it can generate enough economic and military progress to challenge or even overtake less authoritarian societies. Whether democracy and freedom will always produce enough progress and prosperity to outpace authoritarian states is a great question of our time, which I would like to see worked out in Science Fiction. This is especially interesting when (e.g. the Draka) the authoritarian state is also stealing technology from the free states.
The Chinese aren't stealing technology, business people are in a race
to see who can _give_ them the most. As to economic progress, it
seems to have escaped your notice that China has gone from the 10th
largest economy to the second largest in less than 30 years.
They're stealing it too. My employer gets cyberattacks from China on a daily basis. My job
is keeping them out.

Pt
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-23 01:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.
So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
I am confident that China does not work, in the sense that the more we hear about it, the less attractive it looks.
I do not think there is enough evidence yet to tell if it can work, in the sense that it can generate enough economic and military progress to challenge or even overtake less authoritarian societies. Whether democracy and freedom will always produce enough progress and prosperity to outpace authoritarian states is a great question of our time, which I would like to see worked out in Science Fiction. This is especially interesting when (e.g. the Draka) the authoritarian state is also stealing technology from the free states.
The Chinese aren't stealing technology, business people are in a race
to see who can _give_ them the most. As to economic progress, it
seems to have escaped your notice that China has gone from the 10th
largest economy to the second largest in less than 30 years.
They're stealing it too. My employer gets cyberattacks from China on a daily basis. My job
is keeping them out.
Pt
I've sold one license of my software in China. I have over a thousand
users there.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
They're stealing it too. My employer gets cyberattacks from China on a daily basis. My job
is keeping them out.
A previous employer of mine had similar issues.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The Chinese aren't stealing technology, business people are in a race
to see who can _give_ them the most.
No, this isn't enough for China. Chinese hackers are also hard at work penetrating
the computer systems of American companies to steal additional technology.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-23 12:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2020 03:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The Chinese aren't stealing technology, business people are in a race
to see who can _give_ them the most.
No, this isn't enough for China. Chinese hackers are also hard at work penetrating
the computer systems of American companies to steal additional technology.
What technology would that be that they don't already have?
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-23 00:04:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing "Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers and so on in government.
Allowing for glitches in the last twelve months,
are you confident that China today "doesn't work"?
And yes I note whose "modest proposal" I'm apparently
defending.
So I think I'd speak up for a revival of science
education, of not denying facts, and maybe bring back
the death penalty for sorcery as practised by
televangelists and megachurches who promise to
cure cancer or coronavirus or poverty in return
for money.
China works because of the millions of slaves in its factories.

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-05-23 20:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-say
s-she-was
-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916
447
Post by Quadibloc
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the
authority to
give
Post by Quadibloc
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science
Council, mad
e up of
Post by Quadibloc
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of
government
- like
Post by Quadibloc
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with
arrest power
s - the
Post by Quadibloc
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future
society envi
saged by
Post by Quadibloc
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing
"Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking
government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist
China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but
actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Wasn't the 30s when eugenics was big?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Woodward
2020-05-24 05:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<SNIP!!>
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
Perhaps in the 1930s, and in the minds of those pushing
"Scientific Socialism". Unfortunately we now know that taking
government too far away from democracy doesn't work - Communist
China not only claims to be using "Scientific Socialism" but
actually does have a much more prominent roles for ex-engineers
and so on in government.
Wasn't the 30s when eugenics was big?
I believe eugenics had been fairly big for several decades at that point
(OBSF Ref: _Methuselah's Children_).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Peter Trei
2020-05-22 15:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
John Savard
You're recreating Technocracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

It was quite popular in sercon fandom 60, 70 years ago.

Pt
Quadibloc
2020-05-23 10:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
You're recreating Technocracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
It was quite popular in sercon fandom 60, 70 years ago.
Of course, Technocracy would never fly today. For one thing, it's clearly unfair
to cross-dressers.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-05-22 16:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 21 May 2020 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/ousted-scientist-says-she-was-asked-to-manipulate-florida-covid-19-data/?comments=1&post=38916447
Take away from politicians, from the President on down, the authority to give
orders to scientists in the performance of their duties.
Instead have decisions relating to science made by a Science Council, made up of
scientists, with the legal status of an independent branch of government - like
the Supreme Court.
If necessary, they could even have an investigative arm with arrest powers - the
Science Police.
This would be a step forwards to the kind of advanced future society envisaged by
many writers of science-fiction stories and comic books.
Particularly the dystopias.

The whole /point/ of exploring this sort of thing in fiction is to see
where the problems lie.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...